Residents' News

The estimated prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% among residents and interns worldwide in a meta-analysis of 54 studies of the issue, according to a report published online December 8 in JAMA.

The depression rate ranged from 20.9% to 43.2%, depending on the instrument used to assess symptoms. Eleven studies used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), 11 used the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), 8 used the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire (PRIME-MD), 7 used the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), 4 used the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), 3 used the Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale (HANDS), and 11 used other validated methods, said Dr. Douglas A. Mata of the department of pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his associates.

“It is important to note that the vast majority of participants were assessed through self-report inventories that measured depressive symptoms, rather than gold-standard diagnostic clinical interviews for major depressive disorder,” they said.

The meta-analysis included 31 cross-sectional and 23 longitudinal studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 1963 and involving 17,560 residents or interns in North America (35 studies), Asia (9 studies), Europe (5 studies), South America (4 studies), and Africa (1 study). When the results were pooled, the overall prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% (4,969 of 17,560 participants).

In a sensitivity analysis, no individual study affected the overall prevalence estimate by more than 1%. Further analyses showed no significant differences in the prevalence of depression between cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, between U.S. studies and those performed in other countries, between studies of nonsurgical residents only vs. studies of all types of residents, or between studies of interns only vs. studies of upper level residents only. This suggests that the underlying causes of depressive symptoms “are common to the residency experience,” Dr. Mata and his associates said (JAMA. 2015 Dec 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15845).

The prevalence of depression increased over time. Although this rise was characterized as modest, “it is notable, given efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, European Working Time Directive, and others to limit trainee duty hours and improve work conditions. [This] trend may reflect the medical community’s increased awareness of depression or developments external to medical education. Future studies should explore specific factors that may explain this trend,” the investigators said.

The study findings indicate that the long-term health of physicians may be affected, since depression has been linked to a higher risk of future depressive episodes and greater long-term morbidity. Patient care may also be affected, given the established association between physician depression and lower-quality care, they added.

The estimated prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% among residents and interns worldwide in a meta-analysis of 54 studies of the issue, according to a report published online December 8 in JAMA.

The depression rate ranged from 20.9% to 43.2%, depending on the instrument used to assess symptoms. Eleven studies used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), 11 used the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), 8 used the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire (PRIME-MD), 7 used the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), 4 used the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), 3 used the Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale (HANDS), and 11 used other validated methods, said Dr. Douglas A. Mata of the department of pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his associates.

“It is important to note that the vast majority of participants were assessed through self-report inventories that measured depressive symptoms, rather than gold-standard diagnostic clinical interviews for major depressive disorder,” they said.

The meta-analysis included 31 cross-sectional and 23 longitudinal studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 1963 and involving 17,560 residents or interns in North America (35 studies), Asia (9 studies), Europe (5 studies), South America (4 studies), and Africa (1 study). When the results were pooled, the overall prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% (4,969 of 17,560 participants).

In a sensitivity analysis, no individual study affected the overall prevalence estimate by more than 1%. Further analyses showed no significant differences in the prevalence of depression between cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, between U.S. studies and those performed in other countries, between studies of nonsurgical residents only vs. studies of all types of residents, or between studies of interns only vs. studies of upper level residents only. This suggests that the underlying causes of depressive symptoms “are common to the residency experience,” Dr. Mata and his associates said (JAMA. 2015 Dec 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15845).

The prevalence of depression increased over time. Although this rise was characterized as modest, “it is notable, given efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, European Working Time Directive, and others to limit trainee duty hours and improve work conditions. [This] trend may reflect the medical community’s increased awareness of depression or developments external to medical education. Future studies should explore specific factors that may explain this trend,” the investigators said.

The study findings indicate that the long-term health of physicians may be affected, since depression has been linked to a higher risk of future depressive episodes and greater long-term morbidity. Patient care may also be affected, given the established association between physician depression and lower-quality care, they added.

The estimated prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% among residents and interns worldwide in a meta-analysis of 54 studies of the issue, according to a report published online December 8 in JAMA.

The depression rate ranged from 20.9% to 43.2%, depending on the instrument used to assess symptoms. Eleven studies used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), 11 used the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), 8 used the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire (PRIME-MD), 7 used the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), 4 used the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), 3 used the Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale (HANDS), and 11 used other validated methods, said Dr. Douglas A. Mata of the department of pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his associates.

“It is important to note that the vast majority of participants were assessed through self-report inventories that measured depressive symptoms, rather than gold-standard diagnostic clinical interviews for major depressive disorder,” they said.

The meta-analysis included 31 cross-sectional and 23 longitudinal studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 1963 and involving 17,560 residents or interns in North America (35 studies), Asia (9 studies), Europe (5 studies), South America (4 studies), and Africa (1 study). When the results were pooled, the overall prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% (4,969 of 17,560 participants).

In a sensitivity analysis, no individual study affected the overall prevalence estimate by more than 1%. Further analyses showed no significant differences in the prevalence of depression between cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, between U.S. studies and those performed in other countries, between studies of nonsurgical residents only vs. studies of all types of residents, or between studies of interns only vs. studies of upper level residents only. This suggests that the underlying causes of depressive symptoms “are common to the residency experience,” Dr. Mata and his associates said (JAMA. 2015 Dec 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15845).

The prevalence of depression increased over time. Although this rise was characterized as modest, “it is notable, given efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, European Working Time Directive, and others to limit trainee duty hours and improve work conditions. [This] trend may reflect the medical community’s increased awareness of depression or developments external to medical education. Future studies should explore specific factors that may explain this trend,” the investigators said.

The study findings indicate that the long-term health of physicians may be affected, since depression has been linked to a higher risk of future depressive episodes and greater long-term morbidity. Patient care may also be affected, given the established association between physician depression and lower-quality care, they added.

At the 62nd annual Southern Thoracic Surgical Association meeting in Orlando, Fla., there were several pervasive themes, including measurement of quality metrics in pulmonary, esophageal, and cardiac surgery. Piggybacking on the topic of quality, Dr. Asad A. Shah of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues identified something inherent to improving a surgical product: the quality of resident training.

In the presentation titled Characterizing the Operative Experience of Cardiothoracic Surgery Residents in the United States: What are Residents Really Doing in the Operating Room?, Dr. Shah and his group utilized data from the 2015 Thoracic Surgery Directors Association Survey (to which 356 trainees responded) in order to analyze specific critical steps that are being performed by each PGY level in both traditional (2- and 3- year) and I-6 integrated programs.

In I-6 programs, trainees routinely performed sternotomy by PGY1; harvested LIMA, cannulated, and performed proximal anastomoses by PGY3; and performed all aspects of CABG by PGY4. Fully 100% of I-6 residents reported being the operative surgeon for both coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to 94% and 86% for CABG in 2-year and 3-year programs (respectively), and 89% and 83% for AVR in 2-year and 3-year programs (respectively).

Few trainees reported experience with other cardiac surgeries as an operative surgeon. Likely because of this lack of experience, 42% of trainees reported the need for further fellowship training to become facile with most standard cardiac procedures.

When we discuss quality metrics, qualifying an educational experience is critical. I commend Dr. Shah and colleagues for a well-analyzed, thoughtful study using the results of a survey that we all take at the end of our annual in-service training exam.

Graded operative responsibility is shown to work well in I-6 training programs where ALL residents reported experience as operative surgeon for CABG and AVR. Interestingly, traditional residents did not have the same experience: It is possible that a truncated training program makes graded learning more difficult in this population group, despite superior surgical skill at entry into cardiothoracic training. Or is this a matter of poor reporting? The definition of “operating surgeon” is not used or interpreted in a standard way and may be incorrectly used by I-6 trainees who have no basis of comparison to relative operative experience in a general surgery program.

Conversely, traditional cardiothoracic residents may have a different barometer of what it means to be an operating surgeon, potentially under-qualifying their experience. Either way, it is difficult to truly objectify a survey, as all individuals will interpret their experience based on their personal learning environment. Dr. Shah’s team is accurate in alluding to the heterogeneity of this experience.

If the operative experience is perceived to be so different amongst trainees across programs, how do we as a society standardize education in order to graduate more competent and capable cardiothoracic surgeons? Sending trainees to boot camps and increasing utilization of simulation labs is one step. Additionally, 360-degree Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–mandated evaluations may open communication avenues that didn’t exist before between mentor and mentee in the operating room and encourage more stepwise teaching. And how do we augment operating surgeon experience across the other cardiac categories (i.e. mitral valve repair, aorta, TAVR, etc)?

In order for the composite body of new graduates to report better national outcomes, we must standardize quality teaching between programs. It is simply not acceptable that half of trainees feel that advanced fellowships are necessary to reach comfort in standard cardiac cases.

The aforementioned study is a great first start, and the analysis should be extended to thoracic experience. Specifically, it would be interesting to perform the same analysis for thoracoscopic cases, as these also include steps that can be learned and mastered prior to doing a case skin to skin on the operating-surgeon side of the table. Standardizing education is difficult in cardiothoracic surgery, but Dr. Shah and colleagues begin an excellent conversation about the heterogeneous training experience that prepares some but fails others.

Dr. Shersher is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and a resident medical editor for Thoracic Surgery News.

At the 62nd annual Southern Thoracic Surgical Association meeting in Orlando, Fla., there were several pervasive themes, including measurement of quality metrics in pulmonary, esophageal, and cardiac surgery. Piggybacking on the topic of quality, Dr. Asad A. Shah of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues identified something inherent to improving a surgical product: the quality of resident training.

In the presentation titled Characterizing the Operative Experience of Cardiothoracic Surgery Residents in the United States: What are Residents Really Doing in the Operating Room?, Dr. Shah and his group utilized data from the 2015 Thoracic Surgery Directors Association Survey (to which 356 trainees responded) in order to analyze specific critical steps that are being performed by each PGY level in both traditional (2- and 3- year) and I-6 integrated programs.

In I-6 programs, trainees routinely performed sternotomy by PGY1; harvested LIMA, cannulated, and performed proximal anastomoses by PGY3; and performed all aspects of CABG by PGY4. Fully 100% of I-6 residents reported being the operative surgeon for both coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to 94% and 86% for CABG in 2-year and 3-year programs (respectively), and 89% and 83% for AVR in 2-year and 3-year programs (respectively).

Few trainees reported experience with other cardiac surgeries as an operative surgeon. Likely because of this lack of experience, 42% of trainees reported the need for further fellowship training to become facile with most standard cardiac procedures.

When we discuss quality metrics, qualifying an educational experience is critical. I commend Dr. Shah and colleagues for a well-analyzed, thoughtful study using the results of a survey that we all take at the end of our annual in-service training exam.

Graded operative responsibility is shown to work well in I-6 training programs where ALL residents reported experience as operative surgeon for CABG and AVR. Interestingly, traditional residents did not have the same experience: It is possible that a truncated training program makes graded learning more difficult in this population group, despite superior surgical skill at entry into cardiothoracic training. Or is this a matter of poor reporting? The definition of “operating surgeon” is not used or interpreted in a standard way and may be incorrectly used by I-6 trainees who have no basis of comparison to relative operative experience in a general surgery program.

Conversely, traditional cardiothoracic residents may have a different barometer of what it means to be an operating surgeon, potentially under-qualifying their experience. Either way, it is difficult to truly objectify a survey, as all individuals will interpret their experience based on their personal learning environment. Dr. Shah’s team is accurate in alluding to the heterogeneity of this experience.

If the operative experience is perceived to be so different amongst trainees across programs, how do we as a society standardize education in order to graduate more competent and capable cardiothoracic surgeons? Sending trainees to boot camps and increasing utilization of simulation labs is one step. Additionally, 360-degree Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–mandated evaluations may open communication avenues that didn’t exist before between mentor and mentee in the operating room and encourage more stepwise teaching. And how do we augment operating surgeon experience across the other cardiac categories (i.e. mitral valve repair, aorta, TAVR, etc)?

In order for the composite body of new graduates to report better national outcomes, we must standardize quality teaching between programs. It is simply not acceptable that half of trainees feel that advanced fellowships are necessary to reach comfort in standard cardiac cases.

The aforementioned study is a great first start, and the analysis should be extended to thoracic experience. Specifically, it would be interesting to perform the same analysis for thoracoscopic cases, as these also include steps that can be learned and mastered prior to doing a case skin to skin on the operating-surgeon side of the table. Standardizing education is difficult in cardiothoracic surgery, but Dr. Shah and colleagues begin an excellent conversation about the heterogeneous training experience that prepares some but fails others.

Dr. Shersher is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and a resident medical editor for Thoracic Surgery News.

At the 62nd annual Southern Thoracic Surgical Association meeting in Orlando, Fla., there were several pervasive themes, including measurement of quality metrics in pulmonary, esophageal, and cardiac surgery. Piggybacking on the topic of quality, Dr. Asad A. Shah of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues identified something inherent to improving a surgical product: the quality of resident training.

In the presentation titled Characterizing the Operative Experience of Cardiothoracic Surgery Residents in the United States: What are Residents Really Doing in the Operating Room?, Dr. Shah and his group utilized data from the 2015 Thoracic Surgery Directors Association Survey (to which 356 trainees responded) in order to analyze specific critical steps that are being performed by each PGY level in both traditional (2- and 3- year) and I-6 integrated programs.

In I-6 programs, trainees routinely performed sternotomy by PGY1; harvested LIMA, cannulated, and performed proximal anastomoses by PGY3; and performed all aspects of CABG by PGY4. Fully 100% of I-6 residents reported being the operative surgeon for both coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to 94% and 86% for CABG in 2-year and 3-year programs (respectively), and 89% and 83% for AVR in 2-year and 3-year programs (respectively).

Few trainees reported experience with other cardiac surgeries as an operative surgeon. Likely because of this lack of experience, 42% of trainees reported the need for further fellowship training to become facile with most standard cardiac procedures.

When we discuss quality metrics, qualifying an educational experience is critical. I commend Dr. Shah and colleagues for a well-analyzed, thoughtful study using the results of a survey that we all take at the end of our annual in-service training exam.

Graded operative responsibility is shown to work well in I-6 training programs where ALL residents reported experience as operative surgeon for CABG and AVR. Interestingly, traditional residents did not have the same experience: It is possible that a truncated training program makes graded learning more difficult in this population group, despite superior surgical skill at entry into cardiothoracic training. Or is this a matter of poor reporting? The definition of “operating surgeon” is not used or interpreted in a standard way and may be incorrectly used by I-6 trainees who have no basis of comparison to relative operative experience in a general surgery program.

Conversely, traditional cardiothoracic residents may have a different barometer of what it means to be an operating surgeon, potentially under-qualifying their experience. Either way, it is difficult to truly objectify a survey, as all individuals will interpret their experience based on their personal learning environment. Dr. Shah’s team is accurate in alluding to the heterogeneity of this experience.

If the operative experience is perceived to be so different amongst trainees across programs, how do we as a society standardize education in order to graduate more competent and capable cardiothoracic surgeons? Sending trainees to boot camps and increasing utilization of simulation labs is one step. Additionally, 360-degree Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–mandated evaluations may open communication avenues that didn’t exist before between mentor and mentee in the operating room and encourage more stepwise teaching. And how do we augment operating surgeon experience across the other cardiac categories (i.e. mitral valve repair, aorta, TAVR, etc)?

In order for the composite body of new graduates to report better national outcomes, we must standardize quality teaching between programs. It is simply not acceptable that half of trainees feel that advanced fellowships are necessary to reach comfort in standard cardiac cases.

The aforementioned study is a great first start, and the analysis should be extended to thoracic experience. Specifically, it would be interesting to perform the same analysis for thoracoscopic cases, as these also include steps that can be learned and mastered prior to doing a case skin to skin on the operating-surgeon side of the table. Standardizing education is difficult in cardiothoracic surgery, but Dr. Shah and colleagues begin an excellent conversation about the heterogeneous training experience that prepares some but fails others.

Dr. Shersher is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and a resident medical editor for Thoracic Surgery News.

Everything seems to be extreme nowadays – “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Extreme Weight Loss,” even “Extreme Fishing” and “Extreme Couponing” – so it was only a matter of time that extreme came to cardiothoracic surgery.

Dr. Michael K. Pasque of Washington University in St. Louis explored “Extreme Mentoring in Cardiothoracic Surgery” in his commentary published online ahead of print for the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.04.056).

Meaningful mentoring “carries with it considerable responsibility. Extreme mentoring comes only at a price – it is going to cost us,” Dr. Pasque wrote, calling on academic cardiothoracic surgical mentors to perform a self-appraisal of their commitment and mentoring skills. He even developed a self-appraisal checklist that involves 37 different markers in four different categories: general; goals, pathways, and meetings; milestone timelines and taking action; and clinical assistance.

The first step in extreme mentoring for the academic cardiothoracic surgeon is to focus exclusively on the mentee. “As cardiothoracic surgeons, we are used to having the attention focused on us,” Dr. Pasque noted, but mentoring is different: the “energy of our relationship” must focus on the mentee.

The next step involves an objective assessment of the mentee. “If we are to throw our support wholeheartedly behind our mentee, we must genuinely believe in them,” he said. This assessment leads to setting goals for the mentee. “My formula is to honestly estimate the surgical, research, teaching and academic life goals that are both desired by and within reach of our mentee – and then double them,” he said. “We must set very aggressive goals for our mentee.”

Achieving those goals involves directing mentees to the right pathway and then helping them stay on that pathway despite obstacles. “When their progress through these barriers is discussed – and that should be often – then ours should be the voice that reminds them that despite the momentary setbacks, the goals we have set are going to happen,” Dr. Pasque said.

The process involves frequent “and substantive” meetings between mentor and mentee and establishing timelines for achieving milestones and goals. The mentor must back up what happens in those meetings with action – both overt, like assisting them in surgery or introducing them to influential colleagues, and covert in ways the mentee may never know about.

One “clandestine” operation involves the mentor keeping an updated list of 10 individuals who have the most to offer the mentee, “especially in areas in which we have limited or no influence,” and habitually following up with them. The mentor must be willing to “pick a fight” so the mentee doesn’t get left behind on call while senior colleagues attend meetings.

“We must be the senior voice that speaks up for them,” Dr. Pasque wrote. “They need to attend these meetings, even if it is we who must stay behind in their place.”

The mentoring process involves being across the operating room table from them at key milestones in their surgical development and being on-call 24/7 for the mentee. That may seem like extreme handholding to some critics, but Dr. Pasque said that letting a patient suffer or die is inexcusable. “Our first priority is always the patient’s well-being.”

The mentor must show respect to the mentee and practice “extreme encouragement,” especially in the operating room. “There is something magical about being told you are a good surgeon,” he said. “You become one.” This isn’t about falsely building up the mentee, but instilling the confidence to act on the patient’s behalf. The mentee will face enough doubters. “We must be the voice that assures them otherwise,” he said.

Teaching leadership also is key for the mentor. Mentors teach leadership by modeling it. “The best leaders are always those who place the needs of others above their own,” Dr. Pasque pointed out, harkening back to putting the focus on the mentee. “We can’t teach them to put the needs of others above their own without putting their needs about ours.”

Ultimately, the mentor’s greatest desire should be that the mentee exceeds them, “that they make everyone forget about us,” Dr. Pasque said. That would be the “crowning achievement” that would make the mentor “most unforgettable.”

Dr. Pasque had no disclosures.

Everything seems to be extreme nowadays – “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Extreme Weight Loss,” even “Extreme Fishing” and “Extreme Couponing” – so it was only a matter of time that extreme came to cardiothoracic surgery.

Dr. Michael K. Pasque of Washington University in St. Louis explored “Extreme Mentoring in Cardiothoracic Surgery” in his commentary published online ahead of print for the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.04.056).

Meaningful mentoring “carries with it considerable responsibility. Extreme mentoring comes only at a price – it is going to cost us,” Dr. Pasque wrote, calling on academic cardiothoracic surgical mentors to perform a self-appraisal of their commitment and mentoring skills. He even developed a self-appraisal checklist that involves 37 different markers in four different categories: general; goals, pathways, and meetings; milestone timelines and taking action; and clinical assistance.

The first step in extreme mentoring for the academic cardiothoracic surgeon is to focus exclusively on the mentee. “As cardiothoracic surgeons, we are used to having the attention focused on us,” Dr. Pasque noted, but mentoring is different: the “energy of our relationship” must focus on the mentee.

The next step involves an objective assessment of the mentee. “If we are to throw our support wholeheartedly behind our mentee, we must genuinely believe in them,” he said. This assessment leads to setting goals for the mentee. “My formula is to honestly estimate the surgical, research, teaching and academic life goals that are both desired by and within reach of our mentee – and then double them,” he said. “We must set very aggressive goals for our mentee.”

Achieving those goals involves directing mentees to the right pathway and then helping them stay on that pathway despite obstacles. “When their progress through these barriers is discussed – and that should be often – then ours should be the voice that reminds them that despite the momentary setbacks, the goals we have set are going to happen,” Dr. Pasque said.

The process involves frequent “and substantive” meetings between mentor and mentee and establishing timelines for achieving milestones and goals. The mentor must back up what happens in those meetings with action – both overt, like assisting them in surgery or introducing them to influential colleagues, and covert in ways the mentee may never know about.

One “clandestine” operation involves the mentor keeping an updated list of 10 individuals who have the most to offer the mentee, “especially in areas in which we have limited or no influence,” and habitually following up with them. The mentor must be willing to “pick a fight” so the mentee doesn’t get left behind on call while senior colleagues attend meetings.

“We must be the senior voice that speaks up for them,” Dr. Pasque wrote. “They need to attend these meetings, even if it is we who must stay behind in their place.”

The mentoring process involves being across the operating room table from them at key milestones in their surgical development and being on-call 24/7 for the mentee. That may seem like extreme handholding to some critics, but Dr. Pasque said that letting a patient suffer or die is inexcusable. “Our first priority is always the patient’s well-being.”

The mentor must show respect to the mentee and practice “extreme encouragement,” especially in the operating room. “There is something magical about being told you are a good surgeon,” he said. “You become one.” This isn’t about falsely building up the mentee, but instilling the confidence to act on the patient’s behalf. The mentee will face enough doubters. “We must be the voice that assures them otherwise,” he said.

Teaching leadership also is key for the mentor. Mentors teach leadership by modeling it. “The best leaders are always those who place the needs of others above their own,” Dr. Pasque pointed out, harkening back to putting the focus on the mentee. “We can’t teach them to put the needs of others above their own without putting their needs about ours.”

Ultimately, the mentor’s greatest desire should be that the mentee exceeds them, “that they make everyone forget about us,” Dr. Pasque said. That would be the “crowning achievement” that would make the mentor “most unforgettable.”

Dr. Pasque had no disclosures.

Everything seems to be extreme nowadays – “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Extreme Weight Loss,” even “Extreme Fishing” and “Extreme Couponing” – so it was only a matter of time that extreme came to cardiothoracic surgery.

Dr. Michael K. Pasque of Washington University in St. Louis explored “Extreme Mentoring in Cardiothoracic Surgery” in his commentary published online ahead of print for the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.04.056).

Meaningful mentoring “carries with it considerable responsibility. Extreme mentoring comes only at a price – it is going to cost us,” Dr. Pasque wrote, calling on academic cardiothoracic surgical mentors to perform a self-appraisal of their commitment and mentoring skills. He even developed a self-appraisal checklist that involves 37 different markers in four different categories: general; goals, pathways, and meetings; milestone timelines and taking action; and clinical assistance.

The first step in extreme mentoring for the academic cardiothoracic surgeon is to focus exclusively on the mentee. “As cardiothoracic surgeons, we are used to having the attention focused on us,” Dr. Pasque noted, but mentoring is different: the “energy of our relationship” must focus on the mentee.

The next step involves an objective assessment of the mentee. “If we are to throw our support wholeheartedly behind our mentee, we must genuinely believe in them,” he said. This assessment leads to setting goals for the mentee. “My formula is to honestly estimate the surgical, research, teaching and academic life goals that are both desired by and within reach of our mentee – and then double them,” he said. “We must set very aggressive goals for our mentee.”

Achieving those goals involves directing mentees to the right pathway and then helping them stay on that pathway despite obstacles. “When their progress through these barriers is discussed – and that should be often – then ours should be the voice that reminds them that despite the momentary setbacks, the goals we have set are going to happen,” Dr. Pasque said.

The process involves frequent “and substantive” meetings between mentor and mentee and establishing timelines for achieving milestones and goals. The mentor must back up what happens in those meetings with action – both overt, like assisting them in surgery or introducing them to influential colleagues, and covert in ways the mentee may never know about.

One “clandestine” operation involves the mentor keeping an updated list of 10 individuals who have the most to offer the mentee, “especially in areas in which we have limited or no influence,” and habitually following up with them. The mentor must be willing to “pick a fight” so the mentee doesn’t get left behind on call while senior colleagues attend meetings.

“We must be the senior voice that speaks up for them,” Dr. Pasque wrote. “They need to attend these meetings, even if it is we who must stay behind in their place.”

The mentoring process involves being across the operating room table from them at key milestones in their surgical development and being on-call 24/7 for the mentee. That may seem like extreme handholding to some critics, but Dr. Pasque said that letting a patient suffer or die is inexcusable. “Our first priority is always the patient’s well-being.”

The mentor must show respect to the mentee and practice “extreme encouragement,” especially in the operating room. “There is something magical about being told you are a good surgeon,” he said. “You become one.” This isn’t about falsely building up the mentee, but instilling the confidence to act on the patient’s behalf. The mentee will face enough doubters. “We must be the voice that assures them otherwise,” he said.

Teaching leadership also is key for the mentor. Mentors teach leadership by modeling it. “The best leaders are always those who place the needs of others above their own,” Dr. Pasque pointed out, harkening back to putting the focus on the mentee. “We can’t teach them to put the needs of others above their own without putting their needs about ours.”

Ultimately, the mentor’s greatest desire should be that the mentee exceeds them, “that they make everyone forget about us,” Dr. Pasque said. That would be the “crowning achievement” that would make the mentor “most unforgettable.”

Dr. Pasque had no disclosures.

Vascular Surgery has evolved to balance clinical medicine, open and minimally invasive surgical interventions, and innovation into a unique career where technological advancement is constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible in surgical capabilities.

Being awed and inspired by the Vascular Surgery specialty, we have put together the 6Ps for pursuing a career in Vascular Surgery in the spirit of the notorious 6Ps for acute limb ischemia.

1. Patients: Vascular patients are a unique and complex population of patients burdened with numerous comorbidities. Approaching and managing vascular patients requires a good understanding of preoperative medical assessment, risk factor modification, and clinical medicine. Moreover, the nature of vascular disease allows vascular surgeons to develop longstanding relationships with their patients and their families, and follow them through numerous stages of their illness and recovery.

2. Procedures: Performing vascular surgery is a delicate and exhilarating experience operating on arteries, veins, and lymphatics virtually in every part of the body, from the neck, chest, abdomen, and upper and lower limbs. We perform complex procedures from minimally invasive routes to intricate open procedures. Vascular surgeons offer lifesaving, limb-salvaging and quality of life-improving procedures on a daily basis.

3. Problem solving: As medical students and residents can appreciate in vascular teaching rounds, there is never one answer to a clinical situation. Each particular case may be considered through multiple approaches – open surgery, endovascular surgery, hybrid surgery, or medical management. Strikingly, within each category there are further numerous options to consider. Trying to develop the solutions and clinical judgment around a case is what makes this specialty tantalizing. 4. People: Vascular surgeons are the nicest group of surgeons we have ever worked with (there might be a large bias in this statement). They are passionate about their specialty, dedicated to patient care, enthusiastic to teach students, and always easily approachable. We have both been fortunate to be mentored by vascular surgeons and as such decided to pursue careers in this extremely patient-centered field. Given that it is a small community, it truly feels like you are part of the vascular family.

5. Potential: Technology is advancing at an extraordinarily fast pace and the vascular community fosters innovation from preventative strategies, new imaging modalities, and new graft designs just to name a few. The big question is, where will the vascular specialty be in 10 years? And our belief is that it depends on the limits of our imagination. We need to challenge conventional thinking with courage and imagination, bringing innovation to the health care platform.

And finally, one should pursue a career in vascular surgery because it is simply ...

6. Pretty awesome.

As the frontiers of science and technology push forward, so too do the ideas, creativity, and innovation of talented people. Our hope is to be at that cutting edge leading the development of improved medical care and surgical delivery as vascular surgeons.

Vascular Surgery has evolved to balance clinical medicine, open and minimally invasive surgical interventions, and innovation into a unique career where technological advancement is constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible in surgical capabilities.

Being awed and inspired by the Vascular Surgery specialty, we have put together the 6Ps for pursuing a career in Vascular Surgery in the spirit of the notorious 6Ps for acute limb ischemia.

1. Patients: Vascular patients are a unique and complex population of patients burdened with numerous comorbidities. Approaching and managing vascular patients requires a good understanding of preoperative medical assessment, risk factor modification, and clinical medicine. Moreover, the nature of vascular disease allows vascular surgeons to develop longstanding relationships with their patients and their families, and follow them through numerous stages of their illness and recovery.

2. Procedures: Performing vascular surgery is a delicate and exhilarating experience operating on arteries, veins, and lymphatics virtually in every part of the body, from the neck, chest, abdomen, and upper and lower limbs. We perform complex procedures from minimally invasive routes to intricate open procedures. Vascular surgeons offer lifesaving, limb-salvaging and quality of life-improving procedures on a daily basis.

3. Problem solving: As medical students and residents can appreciate in vascular teaching rounds, there is never one answer to a clinical situation. Each particular case may be considered through multiple approaches – open surgery, endovascular surgery, hybrid surgery, or medical management. Strikingly, within each category there are further numerous options to consider. Trying to develop the solutions and clinical judgment around a case is what makes this specialty tantalizing. 4. People: Vascular surgeons are the nicest group of surgeons we have ever worked with (there might be a large bias in this statement). They are passionate about their specialty, dedicated to patient care, enthusiastic to teach students, and always easily approachable. We have both been fortunate to be mentored by vascular surgeons and as such decided to pursue careers in this extremely patient-centered field. Given that it is a small community, it truly feels like you are part of the vascular family.

5. Potential: Technology is advancing at an extraordinarily fast pace and the vascular community fosters innovation from preventative strategies, new imaging modalities, and new graft designs just to name a few. The big question is, where will the vascular specialty be in 10 years? And our belief is that it depends on the limits of our imagination. We need to challenge conventional thinking with courage and imagination, bringing innovation to the health care platform.

And finally, one should pursue a career in vascular surgery because it is simply ...

6. Pretty awesome.

As the frontiers of science and technology push forward, so too do the ideas, creativity, and innovation of talented people. Our hope is to be at that cutting edge leading the development of improved medical care and surgical delivery as vascular surgeons.

Vascular Surgery has evolved to balance clinical medicine, open and minimally invasive surgical interventions, and innovation into a unique career where technological advancement is constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible in surgical capabilities.

Being awed and inspired by the Vascular Surgery specialty, we have put together the 6Ps for pursuing a career in Vascular Surgery in the spirit of the notorious 6Ps for acute limb ischemia.

1. Patients: Vascular patients are a unique and complex population of patients burdened with numerous comorbidities. Approaching and managing vascular patients requires a good understanding of preoperative medical assessment, risk factor modification, and clinical medicine. Moreover, the nature of vascular disease allows vascular surgeons to develop longstanding relationships with their patients and their families, and follow them through numerous stages of their illness and recovery.

2. Procedures: Performing vascular surgery is a delicate and exhilarating experience operating on arteries, veins, and lymphatics virtually in every part of the body, from the neck, chest, abdomen, and upper and lower limbs. We perform complex procedures from minimally invasive routes to intricate open procedures. Vascular surgeons offer lifesaving, limb-salvaging and quality of life-improving procedures on a daily basis.

3. Problem solving: As medical students and residents can appreciate in vascular teaching rounds, there is never one answer to a clinical situation. Each particular case may be considered through multiple approaches – open surgery, endovascular surgery, hybrid surgery, or medical management. Strikingly, within each category there are further numerous options to consider. Trying to develop the solutions and clinical judgment around a case is what makes this specialty tantalizing. 4. People: Vascular surgeons are the nicest group of surgeons we have ever worked with (there might be a large bias in this statement). They are passionate about their specialty, dedicated to patient care, enthusiastic to teach students, and always easily approachable. We have both been fortunate to be mentored by vascular surgeons and as such decided to pursue careers in this extremely patient-centered field. Given that it is a small community, it truly feels like you are part of the vascular family.

5. Potential: Technology is advancing at an extraordinarily fast pace and the vascular community fosters innovation from preventative strategies, new imaging modalities, and new graft designs just to name a few. The big question is, where will the vascular specialty be in 10 years? And our belief is that it depends on the limits of our imagination. We need to challenge conventional thinking with courage and imagination, bringing innovation to the health care platform.

And finally, one should pursue a career in vascular surgery because it is simply ...

6. Pretty awesome.

As the frontiers of science and technology push forward, so too do the ideas, creativity, and innovation of talented people. Our hope is to be at that cutting edge leading the development of improved medical care and surgical delivery as vascular surgeons.

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Academic surgeons earn an average of 10% or $1.3 million less in gross income across their lifetime than surgeons in private practice, an analysis shows.

Some surgical specialties fare better than others, with academic neurosurgeons having the largest reduction in gross income at $4.2 million (–24.2%), while academic pediatric surgeons earn $238,376 more (1.53%) than their private practice counterparts. They were the only ones to do so.

Several academic surgical specialties did not make the 10% average, including trauma surgeons whose lifetime earnings were down 12% or $2.4 million, vascular surgeons at 13.8% or $1.7 million, and surgical oncologists at 12.2% or $1.3 million.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical Group

“The concern that we have is that the academic surgeons are where the education of the future lies,” lead study author Dr. Joseph Martin Lopez said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST).

Every year a new class of surgeons is faced with the question of academic practice or private practice, but they are also struggling with increasing student loan debt and longer training as more surgical residents elect to enter fellowship rather than general practice.

This growing financial liability coupled with declining physician reimbursement could rapidly shift physician practices and thus threaten the fiscal viability of certain surgical fields or academic surgical careers.

“The more financially irresponsible you make it to become an academic surgeon, the more we put at risk our current mode of training,” Dr. Lopez of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said.

To account for additional factors outside gross income, the investigators ran the numbers using a second analysis, a net present value calculation, however, and came up with roughly the same salary gap to contend with.

Net present value (NPV) calculations are commonly used in business to calculate the profitability of an investment and also have been used in the medical field to gauge return on investment for various careers. The NPV calculation accounts for positive and negative cash flows over the entire length of a career, using in this case, a 5% discount rate and adjusting for inflation, Dr. Lopez explained.

Both the lifetime gross income and 5% NPV calculation used data from the Medical Group Management Association’s 2012 physician salary report, the 2012 Association of American Medical Colleges physician salary report, and the AAMC database for residency and fellow salary.

The NPV assumed a career length of 37-39 years, based on a retirement age of 65 years for all specialties. Positive cash flows included annual salary less federal income tax. Negative cash flows included the average principal for student loans, according to the AAMC, and interest at 5%, the average for the three largest student loan lenders in 2014, he said. Student loan repayment was calculated for a fixed-rate loan to be paid over 25 years beginning after residency or any required fellowship.

The average reduction in 5% NPV across surgical specialties for an academic surgeon versus a privately employed surgeon was 12.8% or $246,499, Dr. Lopez said.

Once again, academic neurosurgeons had the largest reduction in 5% NPV at 25.5% or a loss of $619,681, followed closely by trauma surgeons (23% or $381,179) and surgical oncologists (16.3% or $256,373). Academic pediatric surgeons had the smallest reduction in 5% NPV at 4.2% or $88,827.

During a discussion of the provocative poster, attendees questioned whether it was fair to say that private surgeons make more money without acknowledging the risk they face, compared with surgeons employed in an academic setting.

Dr. Lopez countered that, increasingly, even private surgeons are no longer truly private surgeons.

“More and more surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, and even the private surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, which does stabilize your income to some extent,” he said.

“We all still have [relative value unit] goals to meet and RVU incentives that make it so you can get paid a little more, but it’s something that’s a consideration. It is a risk-reward to be a private surgeon. Depending on how your contract is structured or how your group decides to pay the partners, it may be that if you don’t take very much call or take that many cases, you’ll end up on the short end of the stick.”

Dr. Ben L. Zarzaur, a general surgeon at Indiana University in Indianapolis who comoderated the poster discussion, pointed out that market pressures unaccounted for in the model can dramatically influence a surgeon’s salary over a lifetime.

Dr. Lopez agreed, citing how the increasing number of stent placements by cardiologists, for example, has impacted the bottom line of cardiothoracic surgeons. The NPV calculation was specifically used, however, because it gets at market forces such as inflation and return on investment, not addressed by gross income figures alone.

Finally, Dr. Zarzaur turned and asked the relatively young crowd what they would do if offered $600,000 a year, but had to work 110 hours a week or could get $250,000 and work only 40 hours a week.

Most responded that they’d choose the former to repay their student loans and then switch to the lower-paying position.

Responders made much of job satisfaction, work-life balance, and the ability of surgeons in academic practice to take time away from clinical work to conduct research, their ready access to continuing medical education, and their ability to educate the next generation of surgeons.

“Any time we see this academic-private disparity, you have to think about these secondary gains,” Dr. Zarzaur said.

“This is really interesting work. It gets into why we choose what we do, why we’d take $600,000, work 110 hours a week, and get our rear ends kicked. The flip side is, if I saw this, why would you ever go into academics? But people still choose to do it. I’m in academics so there’s a bias, but we choose to do it anyway up to a point. I don’t know where that point is, but up to a point we do.”

pwendling@frontlinemedcom.com

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Academic surgeons earn an average of 10% or $1.3 million less in gross income across their lifetime than surgeons in private practice, an analysis shows.

Some surgical specialties fare better than others, with academic neurosurgeons having the largest reduction in gross income at $4.2 million (–24.2%), while academic pediatric surgeons earn $238,376 more (1.53%) than their private practice counterparts. They were the only ones to do so.

Several academic surgical specialties did not make the 10% average, including trauma surgeons whose lifetime earnings were down 12% or $2.4 million, vascular surgeons at 13.8% or $1.7 million, and surgical oncologists at 12.2% or $1.3 million.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical Group

“The concern that we have is that the academic surgeons are where the education of the future lies,” lead study author Dr. Joseph Martin Lopez said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST).

Every year a new class of surgeons is faced with the question of academic practice or private practice, but they are also struggling with increasing student loan debt and longer training as more surgical residents elect to enter fellowship rather than general practice.

This growing financial liability coupled with declining physician reimbursement could rapidly shift physician practices and thus threaten the fiscal viability of certain surgical fields or academic surgical careers.

“The more financially irresponsible you make it to become an academic surgeon, the more we put at risk our current mode of training,” Dr. Lopez of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said.

To account for additional factors outside gross income, the investigators ran the numbers using a second analysis, a net present value calculation, however, and came up with roughly the same salary gap to contend with.

Net present value (NPV) calculations are commonly used in business to calculate the profitability of an investment and also have been used in the medical field to gauge return on investment for various careers. The NPV calculation accounts for positive and negative cash flows over the entire length of a career, using in this case, a 5% discount rate and adjusting for inflation, Dr. Lopez explained.

Both the lifetime gross income and 5% NPV calculation used data from the Medical Group Management Association’s 2012 physician salary report, the 2012 Association of American Medical Colleges physician salary report, and the AAMC database for residency and fellow salary.

The NPV assumed a career length of 37-39 years, based on a retirement age of 65 years for all specialties. Positive cash flows included annual salary less federal income tax. Negative cash flows included the average principal for student loans, according to the AAMC, and interest at 5%, the average for the three largest student loan lenders in 2014, he said. Student loan repayment was calculated for a fixed-rate loan to be paid over 25 years beginning after residency or any required fellowship.

The average reduction in 5% NPV across surgical specialties for an academic surgeon versus a privately employed surgeon was 12.8% or $246,499, Dr. Lopez said.

Once again, academic neurosurgeons had the largest reduction in 5% NPV at 25.5% or a loss of $619,681, followed closely by trauma surgeons (23% or $381,179) and surgical oncologists (16.3% or $256,373). Academic pediatric surgeons had the smallest reduction in 5% NPV at 4.2% or $88,827.

During a discussion of the provocative poster, attendees questioned whether it was fair to say that private surgeons make more money without acknowledging the risk they face, compared with surgeons employed in an academic setting.

Dr. Lopez countered that, increasingly, even private surgeons are no longer truly private surgeons.

“More and more surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, and even the private surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, which does stabilize your income to some extent,” he said.

“We all still have [relative value unit] goals to meet and RVU incentives that make it so you can get paid a little more, but it’s something that’s a consideration. It is a risk-reward to be a private surgeon. Depending on how your contract is structured or how your group decides to pay the partners, it may be that if you don’t take very much call or take that many cases, you’ll end up on the short end of the stick.”

Dr. Ben L. Zarzaur, a general surgeon at Indiana University in Indianapolis who comoderated the poster discussion, pointed out that market pressures unaccounted for in the model can dramatically influence a surgeon’s salary over a lifetime.

Dr. Lopez agreed, citing how the increasing number of stent placements by cardiologists, for example, has impacted the bottom line of cardiothoracic surgeons. The NPV calculation was specifically used, however, because it gets at market forces such as inflation and return on investment, not addressed by gross income figures alone.

Finally, Dr. Zarzaur turned and asked the relatively young crowd what they would do if offered $600,000 a year, but had to work 110 hours a week or could get $250,000 and work only 40 hours a week.

Most responded that they’d choose the former to repay their student loans and then switch to the lower-paying position.

Responders made much of job satisfaction, work-life balance, and the ability of surgeons in academic practice to take time away from clinical work to conduct research, their ready access to continuing medical education, and their ability to educate the next generation of surgeons.

“Any time we see this academic-private disparity, you have to think about these secondary gains,” Dr. Zarzaur said.

“This is really interesting work. It gets into why we choose what we do, why we’d take $600,000, work 110 hours a week, and get our rear ends kicked. The flip side is, if I saw this, why would you ever go into academics? But people still choose to do it. I’m in academics so there’s a bias, but we choose to do it anyway up to a point. I don’t know where that point is, but up to a point we do.”

pwendling@frontlinemedcom.com

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Academic surgeons earn an average of 10% or $1.3 million less in gross income across their lifetime than surgeons in private practice, an analysis shows.

Some surgical specialties fare better than others, with academic neurosurgeons having the largest reduction in gross income at $4.2 million (–24.2%), while academic pediatric surgeons earn $238,376 more (1.53%) than their private practice counterparts. They were the only ones to do so.

Several academic surgical specialties did not make the 10% average, including trauma surgeons whose lifetime earnings were down 12% or $2.4 million, vascular surgeons at 13.8% or $1.7 million, and surgical oncologists at 12.2% or $1.3 million.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical Group

“The concern that we have is that the academic surgeons are where the education of the future lies,” lead study author Dr. Joseph Martin Lopez said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST).

Every year a new class of surgeons is faced with the question of academic practice or private practice, but they are also struggling with increasing student loan debt and longer training as more surgical residents elect to enter fellowship rather than general practice.

This growing financial liability coupled with declining physician reimbursement could rapidly shift physician practices and thus threaten the fiscal viability of certain surgical fields or academic surgical careers.

“The more financially irresponsible you make it to become an academic surgeon, the more we put at risk our current mode of training,” Dr. Lopez of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said.

To account for additional factors outside gross income, the investigators ran the numbers using a second analysis, a net present value calculation, however, and came up with roughly the same salary gap to contend with.

Net present value (NPV) calculations are commonly used in business to calculate the profitability of an investment and also have been used in the medical field to gauge return on investment for various careers. The NPV calculation accounts for positive and negative cash flows over the entire length of a career, using in this case, a 5% discount rate and adjusting for inflation, Dr. Lopez explained.

Both the lifetime gross income and 5% NPV calculation used data from the Medical Group Management Association’s 2012 physician salary report, the 2012 Association of American Medical Colleges physician salary report, and the AAMC database for residency and fellow salary.

The NPV assumed a career length of 37-39 years, based on a retirement age of 65 years for all specialties. Positive cash flows included annual salary less federal income tax. Negative cash flows included the average principal for student loans, according to the AAMC, and interest at 5%, the average for the three largest student loan lenders in 2014, he said. Student loan repayment was calculated for a fixed-rate loan to be paid over 25 years beginning after residency or any required fellowship.

The average reduction in 5% NPV across surgical specialties for an academic surgeon versus a privately employed surgeon was 12.8% or $246,499, Dr. Lopez said.

Once again, academic neurosurgeons had the largest reduction in 5% NPV at 25.5% or a loss of $619,681, followed closely by trauma surgeons (23% or $381,179) and surgical oncologists (16.3% or $256,373). Academic pediatric surgeons had the smallest reduction in 5% NPV at 4.2% or $88,827.

During a discussion of the provocative poster, attendees questioned whether it was fair to say that private surgeons make more money without acknowledging the risk they face, compared with surgeons employed in an academic setting.

Dr. Lopez countered that, increasingly, even private surgeons are no longer truly private surgeons.

“More and more surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, and even the private surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, which does stabilize your income to some extent,” he said.

“We all still have [relative value unit] goals to meet and RVU incentives that make it so you can get paid a little more, but it’s something that’s a consideration. It is a risk-reward to be a private surgeon. Depending on how your contract is structured or how your group decides to pay the partners, it may be that if you don’t take very much call or take that many cases, you’ll end up on the short end of the stick.”

Dr. Ben L. Zarzaur, a general surgeon at Indiana University in Indianapolis who comoderated the poster discussion, pointed out that market pressures unaccounted for in the model can dramatically influence a surgeon’s salary over a lifetime.

Dr. Lopez agreed, citing how the increasing number of stent placements by cardiologists, for example, has impacted the bottom line of cardiothoracic surgeons. The NPV calculation was specifically used, however, because it gets at market forces such as inflation and return on investment, not addressed by gross income figures alone.

Finally, Dr. Zarzaur turned and asked the relatively young crowd what they would do if offered $600,000 a year, but had to work 110 hours a week or could get $250,000 and work only 40 hours a week.

Most responded that they’d choose the former to repay their student loans and then switch to the lower-paying position.

Responders made much of job satisfaction, work-life balance, and the ability of surgeons in academic practice to take time away from clinical work to conduct research, their ready access to continuing medical education, and their ability to educate the next generation of surgeons.

“Any time we see this academic-private disparity, you have to think about these secondary gains,” Dr. Zarzaur said.

“This is really interesting work. It gets into why we choose what we do, why we’d take $600,000, work 110 hours a week, and get our rear ends kicked. The flip side is, if I saw this, why would you ever go into academics? But people still choose to do it. I’m in academics so there’s a bias, but we choose to do it anyway up to a point. I don’t know where that point is, but up to a point we do.”

pwendling@frontlinemedcom.com

In 2002, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME, rocked traditional residency training paradigms by proposing a regulated residency call schedule.¹ Revised standards were implemented in 2011 throughout the United States prohibiting first-year residents from spending more than 16 consecutive hours in the hospital and restricting senior residents from working more than 80 hr/week averaged over the month.² In Canada, there is no national agreement on residency restriction hours; however, in 2011, the province of Quebec mandated that 24-hour in-hospital call represents a violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and implemented a 16-hour call duty schedule for all Quebec trainees.³

JAMA recently published two observational cohort studies that included over 2 million hospitalized adults across the United States from 2009 to 2012.^4,5 Patient outcomes (including 30-day mortality and readmissions) were compared before the 2011 reforms in duty hours and after 2011.

The key finding from these studies, albeit from a retrospective observational standpoint, demonstrated that even with the introduction of resident restriction duty hours there has been no effect on these patient outcomes. The authors wrote that such an observational study lacks the power to produce the highest level of scientific evidence that will guide practice and policy decisions. But it remains astonishing, that without any evidence in place to support, inform, or implement decisions, a change to the entire paradigm of residency training was made despite the considerable time, effort, and cost involved in implementation of these actions.

Unfortunately, the implementation of these guidelines puts evidence-based medicine to shame.

Now, after a few years of integrating these duty-hour reforms, the observational and longitudinal evidence has failed to demonstrate improved patient safety. If the primary goal was to demonstrate that the imposition of duty-hour restriction would improve patient safety, it has been unsuccessful to date.

Putting the debate aside, we currently work and live in an era of restricted resident duty hours. Looking ahead 10-15 years, we have to question what type of physicians we will be with the current duty-hour restrictions in place, and then reflect on the type of physicians we want and strive to be.

Especially in surgical residency training programs, the overarching goal is for programs to train a safe, competent, and independent surgeon within 5 years. With the current work-hour restrictions, I am not confident this can be achieved.

Many eloquent debates have been written on lack of patient ownership, professionalism, and clinical judgment in our current training paradigm that I won’t belabor. Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers” repeatedly mentioned the “10,000-hour rule” and the principle holds that 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice” are needed to become world-class in any field.

This speaks volumes to surgical trainees who will be required to master complex technical skills and even more multifaceted appropriate judgments, which I doubt can be achieved in the current work-hour restrictions. I am from the camp that if we remain in our present work-hour restriction schedules, there will be a need to modify training to conform to these duty-hour restrictions in order to prepare residents optimally for practice.

Perhaps moving toward a competency-based curriculum would ensure that a surgical trainee is in fact, safe and proficient and ready to transition into practice.

So we now find ourselves working backward trying to validate the system we are presently working in. To that effect, a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees trial) is underway with study end date projected for June 2015.

FIRST aims to determine if increasing flexibility of surgical resident duty-hour requirements affects patient care, surgical outcomes, and resident perceptions. Hospitals or programs will be randomized to either an intervention group with flexibility of duty-hour restrictions with the elimination of current duty-hour requirements or a control group with continued adherence to current requirements.

I cannot foresee what the future may hold, but I will continue to strive for excellence and hope that when my time comes to transition from trainee into independent practice, I will be ready.

References

1. JAMA 2002;288:1112-4.

2. ACGME Duty Hours. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2014 (www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/271/GraduateMedicalEducation/DutyHours.aspx).

3. Towards a Pan-Canadian Consensus on Resident Duty Hours. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2014 (www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/advocacy/educational_initiatives/resident_duty_hours).

4. JAMA 2014;312:2364-73.5. JAMA 2014;312:2374-84.

In 2002, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME, rocked traditional residency training paradigms by proposing a regulated residency call schedule.¹ Revised standards were implemented in 2011 throughout the United States prohibiting first-year residents from spending more than 16 consecutive hours in the hospital and restricting senior residents from working more than 80 hr/week averaged over the month.² In Canada, there is no national agreement on residency restriction hours; however, in 2011, the province of Quebec mandated that 24-hour in-hospital call represents a violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and implemented a 16-hour call duty schedule for all Quebec trainees.³

JAMA recently published two observational cohort studies that included over 2 million hospitalized adults across the United States from 2009 to 2012.^4,5 Patient outcomes (including 30-day mortality and readmissions) were compared before the 2011 reforms in duty hours and after 2011.

The key finding from these studies, albeit from a retrospective observational standpoint, demonstrated that even with the introduction of resident restriction duty hours there has been no effect on these patient outcomes. The authors wrote that such an observational study lacks the power to produce the highest level of scientific evidence that will guide practice and policy decisions. But it remains astonishing, that without any evidence in place to support, inform, or implement decisions, a change to the entire paradigm of residency training was made despite the considerable time, effort, and cost involved in implementation of these actions.

Unfortunately, the implementation of these guidelines puts evidence-based medicine to shame.

Now, after a few years of integrating these duty-hour reforms, the observational and longitudinal evidence has failed to demonstrate improved patient safety. If the primary goal was to demonstrate that the imposition of duty-hour restriction would improve patient safety, it has been unsuccessful to date.

Putting the debate aside, we currently work and live in an era of restricted resident duty hours. Looking ahead 10-15 years, we have to question what type of physicians we will be with the current duty-hour restrictions in place, and then reflect on the type of physicians we want and strive to be.

Especially in surgical residency training programs, the overarching goal is for programs to train a safe, competent, and independent surgeon within 5 years. With the current work-hour restrictions, I am not confident this can be achieved.

Many eloquent debates have been written on lack of patient ownership, professionalism, and clinical judgment in our current training paradigm that I won’t belabor. Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers” repeatedly mentioned the “10,000-hour rule” and the principle holds that 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice” are needed to become world-class in any field.

This speaks volumes to surgical trainees who will be required to master complex technical skills and even more multifaceted appropriate judgments, which I doubt can be achieved in the current work-hour restrictions. I am from the camp that if we remain in our present work-hour restriction schedules, there will be a need to modify training to conform to these duty-hour restrictions in order to prepare residents optimally for practice.

Perhaps moving toward a competency-based curriculum would ensure that a surgical trainee is in fact, safe and proficient and ready to transition into practice.

So we now find ourselves working backward trying to validate the system we are presently working in. To that effect, a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees trial) is underway with study end date projected for June 2015.

FIRST aims to determine if increasing flexibility of surgical resident duty-hour requirements affects patient care, surgical outcomes, and resident perceptions. Hospitals or programs will be randomized to either an intervention group with flexibility of duty-hour restrictions with the elimination of current duty-hour requirements or a control group with continued adherence to current requirements.

I cannot foresee what the future may hold, but I will continue to strive for excellence and hope that when my time comes to transition from trainee into independent practice, I will be ready.

References

1. JAMA 2002;288:1112-4.

2. ACGME Duty Hours. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2014 (www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/271/GraduateMedicalEducation/DutyHours.aspx).

3. Towards a Pan-Canadian Consensus on Resident Duty Hours. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2014 (www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/advocacy/educational_initiatives/resident_duty_hours).

4. JAMA 2014;312:2364-73.5. JAMA 2014;312:2374-84.

In 2002, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME, rocked traditional residency training paradigms by proposing a regulated residency call schedule.¹ Revised standards were implemented in 2011 throughout the United States prohibiting first-year residents from spending more than 16 consecutive hours in the hospital and restricting senior residents from working more than 80 hr/week averaged over the month.² In Canada, there is no national agreement on residency restriction hours; however, in 2011, the province of Quebec mandated that 24-hour in-hospital call represents a violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and implemented a 16-hour call duty schedule for all Quebec trainees.³

JAMA recently published two observational cohort studies that included over 2 million hospitalized adults across the United States from 2009 to 2012.^4,5 Patient outcomes (including 30-day mortality and readmissions) were compared before the 2011 reforms in duty hours and after 2011.

The key finding from these studies, albeit from a retrospective observational standpoint, demonstrated that even with the introduction of resident restriction duty hours there has been no effect on these patient outcomes. The authors wrote that such an observational study lacks the power to produce the highest level of scientific evidence that will guide practice and policy decisions. But it remains astonishing, that without any evidence in place to support, inform, or implement decisions, a change to the entire paradigm of residency training was made despite the considerable time, effort, and cost involved in implementation of these actions.

Unfortunately, the implementation of these guidelines puts evidence-based medicine to shame.

Now, after a few years of integrating these duty-hour reforms, the observational and longitudinal evidence has failed to demonstrate improved patient safety. If the primary goal was to demonstrate that the imposition of duty-hour restriction would improve patient safety, it has been unsuccessful to date.

Putting the debate aside, we currently work and live in an era of restricted resident duty hours. Looking ahead 10-15 years, we have to question what type of physicians we will be with the current duty-hour restrictions in place, and then reflect on the type of physicians we want and strive to be.

Especially in surgical residency training programs, the overarching goal is for programs to train a safe, competent, and independent surgeon within 5 years. With the current work-hour restrictions, I am not confident this can be achieved.

Many eloquent debates have been written on lack of patient ownership, professionalism, and clinical judgment in our current training paradigm that I won’t belabor. Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers” repeatedly mentioned the “10,000-hour rule” and the principle holds that 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice” are needed to become world-class in any field.

This speaks volumes to surgical trainees who will be required to master complex technical skills and even more multifaceted appropriate judgments, which I doubt can be achieved in the current work-hour restrictions. I am from the camp that if we remain in our present work-hour restriction schedules, there will be a need to modify training to conform to these duty-hour restrictions in order to prepare residents optimally for practice.

Perhaps moving toward a competency-based curriculum would ensure that a surgical trainee is in fact, safe and proficient and ready to transition into practice.

So we now find ourselves working backward trying to validate the system we are presently working in. To that effect, a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees trial) is underway with study end date projected for June 2015.

FIRST aims to determine if increasing flexibility of surgical resident duty-hour requirements affects patient care, surgical outcomes, and resident perceptions. Hospitals or programs will be randomized to either an intervention group with flexibility of duty-hour restrictions with the elimination of current duty-hour requirements or a control group with continued adherence to current requirements.

I cannot foresee what the future may hold, but I will continue to strive for excellence and hope that when my time comes to transition from trainee into independent practice, I will be ready.

References

1. JAMA 2002;288:1112-4.

2. ACGME Duty Hours. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2014 (www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/271/GraduateMedicalEducation/DutyHours.aspx).

3. Towards a Pan-Canadian Consensus on Resident Duty Hours. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2014 (www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/advocacy/educational_initiatives/resident_duty_hours).

4. JAMA 2014;312:2364-73.5. JAMA 2014;312:2374-84.

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Academic surgeons earn an average of 10% or $1.3 million less in gross income across their lifetime than surgeons in private practice, an analysis shows.

Some surgical specialties fare better than others, with academic neurosurgeons having the largest reduction in gross income at $4.2 million (-24.2%), while academic pediatric surgeons earn $238,376 more (1.53%) than their private practice counterparts. They were the only ones to do so.

Several academic surgical specialties did not make the 10% average including trauma surgeons whose lifetime earnings were down 12% or $2.4 million, vascular surgeons at 13.8% or $1.7 million, and surgical oncologists at 12.2% or $1.3 million.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical Group

“The concern that we have is that the academic surgeons are where the education of the future lies,” lead study author Dr. Joseph Martin Lopez said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST).

Every year a new class of surgeons is faced with the question of academic practice or private practice, but they are also struggling with increasing student loan debt and longer training as more surgical residents elect to enter fellowship rather than general practice. This growing financial liability coupled with declining physician reimbursement could rapidly shift physician practices and thus threaten the fiscal viability of certain surgical fields or academic surgical careers.

“The more financially irresponsible you make it to become an academic surgeon, the more we put at risk our current mode of training,” Dr. Lopez of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said.

To account for additional factors outside gross income, the investigators ran the numbers using a second analysis, a net present value calculation, however, and came up with roughly the same salary gap to contend with.

Net present value (NPV) calculations are commonly used in business to calculate the profitability of an investment and also have been used in the medical field to gauge return on investment for various careers. The NPV calculation accounts for positive and negative cash flows over the entire length of a career, using in this case, a 5% discount rate and adjusting for inflation, Dr. Lopez explained.

Both the lifetime gross income and 5% NPV calculation used data from the Medical Group Management Association’s 2012 physician salary report, the 2012 Association of American Medical Colleges physician salary report, and the AAMC database for residency and fellow salary.

The NPV assumed a career length of 37-39 years, based on a retirement age of 65 years for all specialties. Positive cash flows included annual salary less federal income tax. Negative cash flows included the average principal for student loans, according to the AAMC, and interest at 5%, the average for the three largest student loan lenders in 2014, he said. Student loan repayment was calculated for a fixed-rate loan to be paid over 25 years beginning after residency or any required fellowship.

The average reduction in 5% NPV across surgical specialties for an academic surgeon versus a privately employed surgeon was 12.8% or $246,499, Dr. Lopez said.

Once again, academic neurosurgeons had the largest reduction in 5% NPV at 25.5% or a loss of $619,681, followed closely by trauma surgeons (23% or $381,179) and surgical oncologists (16.3% or $256,373). Academic pediatric surgeons had the smallest reduction in 5% NPV at 4.2% or $88,827.

During a discussion of the provocative poster, attendees questioned whether it was fair to say that private surgeons make more money without acknowledging the risk they face, compared with surgeons employed in an academic setting.

Dr. Lopez countered that increasingly, even private surgeons are no longer truly private surgeons.

“More and more surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, and even the private surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, which does stabilize your income to some extent,” he said. “We all still have RVU goals to meet and RVU incentives that make it so you can get paid a little more, but it’s something that’s a consideration. It is a risk-reward to be a private surgeon. Depending on how your contract is structured or how your group decides to pay the partners, it may be that if you don’t take very much call or take that many cases, you’ll end up on the short end of the stick.”

Dr. Ben L. Zarzaur, a general surgeon at Indiana University in Indianapolis who comoderated the poster discussion, pointed out that market pressures unaccounted for in the model can dramatically influence a surgeon’s salary over a lifetime.

Dr. Lopez agreed, citing how the increasing number of stent placements by cardiologists, for example, has impacted the bottom line of cardiothoracic surgeons. The NPV calculation was specifically used, however, because it gets at market forces such as inflation and return on investment, not addressed by gross income figures alone.

Finally, Dr. Zarzaur turned and asked the relatively young crowd what they would do if offered $600,000 a year, but had to work 110 hours a week or could get $250,000 and work only 40 hours a week. Most responded that they’d choose the former to repay their student loans and then switch to the lower-paying position. Responders made much of job satisfaction, work-life balance, and the ability of surgeons in academic practice to take time away from clinical work to conduct research, their ready access to continuing medical education, and their ability to educate the next generation of surgeons.

“Any time we see this academic-private disparity, you have to think about these secondary gains,” Dr. Zarzaur said. “This is really interesting work. It gets into why we choose what we do, why we’d take $600,000, work 110 hours a week, and get our rear ends kicked. The flip side is, if I saw this, why would you ever go into academics? But people still choose to do it. I’m in academics so there’s a bias, but we choose to do it anyway up to a point. I don’t know where that point is, but up to a point we do.”

pwendling@frontlinemedcom.com

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Academic surgeons earn an average of 10% or $1.3 million less in gross income across their lifetime than surgeons in private practice, an analysis shows.

Some surgical specialties fare better than others, with academic neurosurgeons having the largest reduction in gross income at $4.2 million (-24.2%), while academic pediatric surgeons earn $238,376 more (1.53%) than their private practice counterparts. They were the only ones to do so.

Several academic surgical specialties did not make the 10% average including trauma surgeons whose lifetime earnings were down 12% or $2.4 million, vascular surgeons at 13.8% or $1.7 million, and surgical oncologists at 12.2% or $1.3 million.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical Group

“The concern that we have is that the academic surgeons are where the education of the future lies,” lead study author Dr. Joseph Martin Lopez said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST).

Every year a new class of surgeons is faced with the question of academic practice or private practice, but they are also struggling with increasing student loan debt and longer training as more surgical residents elect to enter fellowship rather than general practice. This growing financial liability coupled with declining physician reimbursement could rapidly shift physician practices and thus threaten the fiscal viability of certain surgical fields or academic surgical careers.

“The more financially irresponsible you make it to become an academic surgeon, the more we put at risk our current mode of training,” Dr. Lopez of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said.

To account for additional factors outside gross income, the investigators ran the numbers using a second analysis, a net present value calculation, however, and came up with roughly the same salary gap to contend with.

Net present value (NPV) calculations are commonly used in business to calculate the profitability of an investment and also have been used in the medical field to gauge return on investment for various careers. The NPV calculation accounts for positive and negative cash flows over the entire length of a career, using in this case, a 5% discount rate and adjusting for inflation, Dr. Lopez explained.

Both the lifetime gross income and 5% NPV calculation used data from the Medical Group Management Association’s 2012 physician salary report, the 2012 Association of American Medical Colleges physician salary report, and the AAMC database for residency and fellow salary.

The NPV assumed a career length of 37-39 years, based on a retirement age of 65 years for all specialties. Positive cash flows included annual salary less federal income tax. Negative cash flows included the average principal for student loans, according to the AAMC, and interest at 5%, the average for the three largest student loan lenders in 2014, he said. Student loan repayment was calculated for a fixed-rate loan to be paid over 25 years beginning after residency or any required fellowship.

The average reduction in 5% NPV across surgical specialties for an academic surgeon versus a privately employed surgeon was 12.8% or $246,499, Dr. Lopez said.

Once again, academic neurosurgeons had the largest reduction in 5% NPV at 25.5% or a loss of $619,681, followed closely by trauma surgeons (23% or $381,179) and surgical oncologists (16.3% or $256,373). Academic pediatric surgeons had the smallest reduction in 5% NPV at 4.2% or $88,827.

During a discussion of the provocative poster, attendees questioned whether it was fair to say that private surgeons make more money without acknowledging the risk they face, compared with surgeons employed in an academic setting.

Dr. Lopez countered that increasingly, even private surgeons are no longer truly private surgeons.

“More and more surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, and even the private surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, which does stabilize your income to some extent,” he said. “We all still have RVU goals to meet and RVU incentives that make it so you can get paid a little more, but it’s something that’s a consideration. It is a risk-reward to be a private surgeon. Depending on how your contract is structured or how your group decides to pay the partners, it may be that if you don’t take very much call or take that many cases, you’ll end up on the short end of the stick.”

Dr. Ben L. Zarzaur, a general surgeon at Indiana University in Indianapolis who comoderated the poster discussion, pointed out that market pressures unaccounted for in the model can dramatically influence a surgeon’s salary over a lifetime.

Dr. Lopez agreed, citing how the increasing number of stent placements by cardiologists, for example, has impacted the bottom line of cardiothoracic surgeons. The NPV calculation was specifically used, however, because it gets at market forces such as inflation and return on investment, not addressed by gross income figures alone.

Finally, Dr. Zarzaur turned and asked the relatively young crowd what they would do if offered $600,000 a year, but had to work 110 hours a week or could get $250,000 and work only 40 hours a week. Most responded that they’d choose the former to repay their student loans and then switch to the lower-paying position. Responders made much of job satisfaction, work-life balance, and the ability of surgeons in academic practice to take time away from clinical work to conduct research, their ready access to continuing medical education, and their ability to educate the next generation of surgeons.

“Any time we see this academic-private disparity, you have to think about these secondary gains,” Dr. Zarzaur said. “This is really interesting work. It gets into why we choose what we do, why we’d take $600,000, work 110 hours a week, and get our rear ends kicked. The flip side is, if I saw this, why would you ever go into academics? But people still choose to do it. I’m in academics so there’s a bias, but we choose to do it anyway up to a point. I don’t know where that point is, but up to a point we do.”

pwendling@frontlinemedcom.com

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Academic surgeons earn an average of 10% or $1.3 million less in gross income across their lifetime than surgeons in private practice, an analysis shows.

Some surgical specialties fare better than others, with academic neurosurgeons having the largest reduction in gross income at $4.2 million (-24.2%), while academic pediatric surgeons earn $238,376 more (1.53%) than their private practice counterparts. They were the only ones to do so.

Several academic surgical specialties did not make the 10% average including trauma surgeons whose lifetime earnings were down 12% or $2.4 million, vascular surgeons at 13.8% or $1.7 million, and surgical oncologists at 12.2% or $1.3 million.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical Group

“The concern that we have is that the academic surgeons are where the education of the future lies,” lead study author Dr. Joseph Martin Lopez said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST).

Every year a new class of surgeons is faced with the question of academic practice or private practice, but they are also struggling with increasing student loan debt and longer training as more surgical residents elect to enter fellowship rather than general practice. This growing financial liability coupled with declining physician reimbursement could rapidly shift physician practices and thus threaten the fiscal viability of certain surgical fields or academic surgical careers.

“The more financially irresponsible you make it to become an academic surgeon, the more we put at risk our current mode of training,” Dr. Lopez of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said.

To account for additional factors outside gross income, the investigators ran the numbers using a second analysis, a net present value calculation, however, and came up with roughly the same salary gap to contend with.

Net present value (NPV) calculations are commonly used in business to calculate the profitability of an investment and also have been used in the medical field to gauge return on investment for various careers. The NPV calculation accounts for positive and negative cash flows over the entire length of a career, using in this case, a 5% discount rate and adjusting for inflation, Dr. Lopez explained.

Both the lifetime gross income and 5% NPV calculation used data from the Medical Group Management Association’s 2012 physician salary report, the 2012 Association of American Medical Colleges physician salary report, and the AAMC database for residency and fellow salary.

The NPV assumed a career length of 37-39 years, based on a retirement age of 65 years for all specialties. Positive cash flows included annual salary less federal income tax. Negative cash flows included the average principal for student loans, according to the AAMC, and interest at 5%, the average for the three largest student loan lenders in 2014, he said. Student loan repayment was calculated for a fixed-rate loan to be paid over 25 years beginning after residency or any required fellowship.

The average reduction in 5% NPV across surgical specialties for an academic surgeon versus a privately employed surgeon was 12.8% or $246,499, Dr. Lopez said.

Once again, academic neurosurgeons had the largest reduction in 5% NPV at 25.5% or a loss of $619,681, followed closely by trauma surgeons (23% or $381,179) and surgical oncologists (16.3% or $256,373). Academic pediatric surgeons had the smallest reduction in 5% NPV at 4.2% or $88,827.

During a discussion of the provocative poster, attendees questioned whether it was fair to say that private surgeons make more money without acknowledging the risk they face, compared with surgeons employed in an academic setting.

Dr. Lopez countered that increasingly, even private surgeons are no longer truly private surgeons.

“More and more surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, and even the private surgical groups are being bought up by hospitals, which does stabilize your income to some extent,” he said. “We all still have RVU goals to meet and RVU incentives that make it so you can get paid a little more, but it’s something that’s a consideration. It is a risk-reward to be a private surgeon. Depending on how your contract is structured or how your group decides to pay the partners, it may be that if you don’t take very much call or take that many cases, you’ll end up on the short end of the stick.”

Dr. Ben L. Zarzaur, a general surgeon at Indiana University in Indianapolis who comoderated the poster discussion, pointed out that market pressures unaccounted for in the model can dramatically influence a surgeon’s salary over a lifetime.

Dr. Lopez agreed, citing how the increasing number of stent placements by cardiologists, for example, has impacted the bottom line of cardiothoracic surgeons. The NPV calculation was specifically used, however, because it gets at market forces such as inflation and return on investment, not addressed by gross income figures alone.

Finally, Dr. Zarzaur turned and asked the relatively young crowd what they would do if offered $600,000 a year, but had to work 110 hours a week or could get $250,000 and work only 40 hours a week. Most responded that they’d choose the former to repay their student loans and then switch to the lower-paying position. Responders made much of job satisfaction, work-life balance, and the ability of surgeons in academic practice to take time away from clinical work to conduct research, their ready access to continuing medical education, and their ability to educate the next generation of surgeons.

“Any time we see this academic-private disparity, you have to think about these secondary gains,” Dr. Zarzaur said. “This is really interesting work. It gets into why we choose what we do, why we’d take $600,000, work 110 hours a week, and get our rear ends kicked. The flip side is, if I saw this, why would you ever go into academics? But people still choose to do it. I’m in academics so there’s a bias, but we choose to do it anyway up to a point. I don’t know where that point is, but up to a point we do.”

pwendling@frontlinemedcom.com

BOSTON – Medical residents in the United States appear to understand that cardiopulmonary resuscitation or intubation is highly unlikely to benefit patients with advanced cancers at the end of life, but the majority of residents surveyed said that they do not discuss code-status options or potentially beneficial palliative care with their dying patients.

“This was primarily due to residents’ perceptions of patient autonomy: Residents wanted patients to make their own decisions, without any influence from the doctor, which misses the concept of informed decision making. These incomplete discussions can cause at minimum improper documentation of patients’ wishes, and at most psychological harm, damage to the physician-patient relationship, and the potential for unwanted attempts at resuscitation,” said Dr. David J. Einstein, a resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston.

Despite their reluctance to have the discussion, however, the majority of residents said they preferred to discuss code status with patients themselves rather than hand it off to the attending physician, primarily out of a sense that it is their responsibility as physicians.

Yet these physicians in training did not seem to feel that they were also responsible for providing guidance to patients, Dr. Einstein said at the Palliative Care in Oncology Symposium.

“We felt that this represented an unmet need in training and practice. Residents and attendings should be providing guidance on all medical interventions, including CPR, and if they aren’t sure what to recommend, then they themselves should be seeking guidance from other experts, before asking a patient to falsely choose between an intervention and death,” he said.

The first discussion of code status – do not resuscitate (DNR) or do not intubate (DNI) – may occur in the hospital, and is often left to a resident physician. Ideally, the physician and patient should discuss the patient’s prognosis, goals for care, evaluation of CPR as a means of meeting those goals, and a recommendation.

But many residents lack training in the end-of-life discussion, which can have a significant impact on the quality of the patients’ remaining weeks or months of life.

Nationwide survey

Dr. Einstein and his colleagues conducted a nationwide survey to measure the likelihood that residents would discuss prognostic information and offer recommendations to patients with limited life expectancy. They also sought to determine why residents might be reluctant to provide discussion, and to evaluate their satisfaction with code-status discussions that both they and their attending physicians have conducted.

The survey presented respondents with a hypothetical case of a patient with stage IV adenocarcinoma of the lung metastatic to the brain. The patient, who has disease progression despite receiving first- and second-line therapy, presents to the emergency department with 
dyspnea and is slightly hypoxemic, but is not in distress. The patient has not previously established a code-status preference.

The investigators contacted 387 residency program directors by mail, 19 of whom agreed to participate and responded. They sent surveys to a total of 1,627 residents, 358 of which were completed and included.

The investigators found that slightly less than half of the respondents said they would share information with the patient about his/her prognosis and the relative benefit of CPR, and more than two-thirds said they would be unlikely to offer a specific recommendation.

“So even in the situation with a clearly declining patient, residents were as likely as not to provide the information needed to make an informed decision, and were far less likely to provide guidance on this decision,” Dr. Einstein said.

Asked the reason for their decisions, 69% of the residents who would not offer a recommendation said that the patient should make his/her own decision without any influence, and 26.5% said that the attending would not want them to offer a recommendation. Nonetheless, only 1.3% of this group said they believed that CPR would offer the patient a reasonable chance of resuscitation.

The majority of respondents who would offer a recommendation (93.5%) said they would recommend DNR and DNI.

Code-status talk a ‘responsibility’

When they were asked whether they would prefer the attending to discuss code status, nearly 70% of respondents disagreed.

Of those residents who said they preferred to retain the code-status discussion, 93.4% said they thought it was part of their responsibility as a physician, and 65.8% said they thought they had sufficient training and knowledge to do it. A minority in this group (2.5%) said that they would be likely to disagree with the attending’s estimate of prognosis, and 4.9% said they thought the attending would not share his/her estimate honestly.

When the authors asked about the residents’ general satisfaction with discussion of code status, “we learned two things: One, the residents are significantly more satisfied with their own discussions than their attendings’ discussions; and two, there is a substantial minority that is dissatisfied with all discussions, and a small number who are actually very satisfied,” Dr. Einstein said.

In a linear regression analysis testing for hypothesized correlations, the investigators found that more-senior residents were more likely to share prognostic information and make recommendations (P = .002). Residents who expressed an interest in hematology/oncology or palliative care specialization were also more likely to offer prognostic information, but not to make a recommendation about code status.

More-senior year of training correlated negatively with satisfaction with both the resident’s own and the attending’s discussion of code status.

“We found substantial dissatisfaction with code-status discussions in general, and we hypothesize that this is due to an internal conflict. When a resident knows that an intervention may be more harmful than beneficial, but thinks that the patient should make their own decision alone, then one may experience substantial frustration, and this would increase as training goes on and one becomes more sure of the outcomes of interventions like CPR,” Dr. Einstein said.

Generation gap

Evoking a potential generation gap between old-school doctors and the up-and-coming young physicians who by statute work fewer hours than their mentors had to, “I’m struck that [residents] don’t trust the attendings. When I was a resident, you didn’t do anything without asking the attending,” said Dr. Michael H. Levy, an invited discussant who is vice chair of medical oncology and director of the pain and palliative care program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

“I’m glad that the residents want to do it, but they have the same arrogance/ignorance that they don’t know how, so if we want them to do it, we have to train them,” he said. The symposium was cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC. The study was supported in part by the Conquer Cancer Foundation. Dr. Einstein and Dr. Levy reported having no relevant disclosures.

BOSTON – Medical residents in the United States appear to understand that cardiopulmonary resuscitation or intubation is highly unlikely to benefit patients with advanced cancers at the end of life, but the majority of residents surveyed said that they do not discuss code-status options or potentially beneficial palliative care with their dying patients.

“This was primarily due to residents’ perceptions of patient autonomy: Residents wanted patients to make their own decisions, without any influence from the doctor, which misses the concept of informed decision making. These incomplete discussions can cause at minimum improper documentation of patients’ wishes, and at most psychological harm, damage to the physician-patient relationship, and the potential for unwanted attempts at resuscitation,” said Dr. David J. Einstein, a resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston.

Despite their reluctance to have the discussion, however, the majority of residents said they preferred to discuss code status with patients themselves rather than hand it off to the attending physician, primarily out of a sense that it is their responsibility as physicians.

Yet these physicians in training did not seem to feel that they were also responsible for providing guidance to patients, Dr. Einstein said at the Palliative Care in Oncology Symposium.

“We felt that this represented an unmet need in training and practice. Residents and attendings should be providing guidance on all medical interventions, including CPR, and if they aren’t sure what to recommend, then they themselves should be seeking guidance from other experts, before asking a patient to falsely choose between an intervention and death,” he said.

The first discussion of code status – do not resuscitate (DNR) or do not intubate (DNI) – may occur in the hospital, and is often left to a resident physician. Ideally, the physician and patient should discuss the patient’s prognosis, goals for care, evaluation of CPR as a means of meeting those goals, and a recommendation.

But many residents lack training in the end-of-life discussion, which can have a significant impact on the quality of the patients’ remaining weeks or months of life.

Nationwide survey

Dr. Einstein and his colleagues conducted a nationwide survey to measure the likelihood that residents would discuss prognostic information and offer recommendations to patients with limited life expectancy. They also sought to determine why residents might be reluctant to provide discussion, and to evaluate their satisfaction with code-status discussions that both they and their attending physicians have conducted.

The survey presented respondents with a hypothetical case of a patient with stage IV adenocarcinoma of the lung metastatic to the brain. The patient, who has disease progression despite receiving first- and second-line therapy, presents to the emergency department with 
dyspnea and is slightly hypoxemic, but is not in distress. The patient has not previously established a code-status preference.

The investigators contacted 387 residency program directors by mail, 19 of whom agreed to participate and responded. They sent surveys to a total of 1,627 residents, 358 of which were completed and included.

The investigators found that slightly less than half of the respondents said they would share information with the patient about his/her prognosis and the relative benefit of CPR, and more than two-thirds said they would be unlikely to offer a specific recommendation.

“So even in the situation with a clearly declining patient, residents were as likely as not to provide the information needed to make an informed decision, and were far less likely to provide guidance on this decision,” Dr. Einstein said.

Asked the reason for their decisions, 69% of the residents who would not offer a recommendation said that the patient should make his/her own decision without any influence, and 26.5% said that the attending would not want them to offer a recommendation. Nonetheless, only 1.3% of this group said they believed that CPR would offer the patient a reasonable chance of resuscitation.

The majority of respondents who would offer a recommendation (93.5%) said they would recommend DNR and DNI.

Code-status talk a ‘responsibility’

When they were asked whether they would prefer the attending to discuss code status, nearly 70% of respondents disagreed.

Of those residents who said they preferred to retain the code-status discussion, 93.4% said they thought it was part of their responsibility as a physician, and 65.8% said they thought they had sufficient training and knowledge to do it. A minority in this group (2.5%) said that they would be likely to disagree with the attending’s estimate of prognosis, and 4.9% said they thought the attending would not share his/her estimate honestly.

When the authors asked about the residents’ general satisfaction with discussion of code status, “we learned two things: One, the residents are significantly more satisfied with their own discussions than their attendings’ discussions; and two, there is a substantial minority that is dissatisfied with all discussions, and a small number who are actually very satisfied,” Dr. Einstein said.

In a linear regression analysis testing for hypothesized correlations, the investigators found that more-senior residents were more likely to share prognostic information and make recommendations (P = .002). Residents who expressed an interest in hematology/oncology or palliative care specialization were also more likely to offer prognostic information, but not to make a recommendation about code status.

More-senior year of training correlated negatively with satisfaction with both the resident’s own and the attending’s discussion of code status.

“We found substantial dissatisfaction with code-status discussions in general, and we hypothesize that this is due to an internal conflict. When a resident knows that an intervention may be more harmful than beneficial, but thinks that the patient should make their own decision alone, then one may experience substantial frustration, and this would increase as training goes on and one becomes more sure of the outcomes of interventions like CPR,” Dr. Einstein said.

Generation gap

Evoking a potential generation gap between old-school doctors and the up-and-coming young physicians who by statute work fewer hours than their mentors had to, “I’m struck that [residents] don’t trust the attendings. When I was a resident, you didn’t do anything without asking the attending,” said Dr. Michael H. Levy, an invited discussant who is vice chair of medical oncology and director of the pain and palliative care program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

“I’m glad that the residents want to do it, but they have the same arrogance/ignorance that they don’t know how, so if we want them to do it, we have to train them,” he said. The symposium was cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC. The study was supported in part by the Conquer Cancer Foundation. Dr. Einstein and Dr. Levy reported having no relevant disclosures.

BOSTON – Medical residents in the United States appear to understand that cardiopulmonary resuscitation or intubation is highly unlikely to benefit patients with advanced cancers at the end of life, but the majority of residents surveyed said that they do not discuss code-status options or potentially beneficial palliative care with their dying patients.

“This was primarily due to residents’ perceptions of patient autonomy: Residents wanted patients to make their own decisions, without any influence from the doctor, which misses the concept of informed decision making. These incomplete discussions can cause at minimum improper documentation of patients’ wishes, and at most psychological harm, damage to the physician-patient relationship, and the potential for unwanted attempts at resuscitation,” said Dr. David J. Einstein, a resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston.

Despite their reluctance to have the discussion, however, the majority of residents said they preferred to discuss code status with patients themselves rather than hand it off to the attending physician, primarily out of a sense that it is their responsibility as physicians.

Yet these physicians in training did not seem to feel that they were also responsible for providing guidance to patients, Dr. Einstein said at the Palliative Care in Oncology Symposium.

“We felt that this represented an unmet need in training and practice. Residents and attendings should be providing guidance on all medical interventions, including CPR, and if they aren’t sure what to recommend, then they themselves should be seeking guidance from other experts, before asking a patient to falsely choose between an intervention and death,” he said.

The first discussion of code status – do not resuscitate (DNR) or do not intubate (DNI) – may occur in the hospital, and is often left to a resident physician. Ideally, the physician and patient should discuss the patient’s prognosis, goals for care, evaluation of CPR as a means of meeting those goals, and a recommendation.

But many residents lack training in the end-of-life discussion, which can have a significant impact on the quality of the patients’ remaining weeks or months of life.

Nationwide survey

Dr. Einstein and his colleagues conducted a nationwide survey to measure the likelihood that residents would discuss prognostic information and offer recommendations to patients with limited life expectancy. They also sought to determine why residents might be reluctant to provide discussion, and to evaluate their satisfaction with code-status discussions that both they and their attending physicians have conducted.

The survey presented respondents with a hypothetical case of a patient with stage IV adenocarcinoma of the lung metastatic to the brain. The patient, who has disease progression despite receiving first- and second-line therapy, presents to the emergency department with 
dyspnea and is slightly hypoxemic, but is not in distress. The patient has not previously established a code-status preference.

The investigators contacted 387 residency program directors by mail, 19 of whom agreed to participate and responded. They sent surveys to a total of 1,627 residents, 358 of which were completed and included.

The investigators found that slightly less than half of the respondents said they would share information with the patient about his/her prognosis and the relative benefit of CPR, and more than two-thirds said they would be unlikely to offer a specific recommendation.

“So even in the situation with a clearly declining patient, residents were as likely as not to provide the information needed to make an informed decision, and were far less likely to provide guidance on this decision,” Dr. Einstein said.

Asked the reason for their decisions, 69% of the residents who would not offer a recommendation said that the patient should make his/her own decision without any influence, and 26.5% said that the attending would not want them to offer a recommendation. Nonetheless, only 1.3% of this group said they believed that CPR would offer the patient a reasonable chance of resuscitation.

The majority of respondents who would offer a recommendation (93.5%) said they would recommend DNR and DNI.

Code-status talk a ‘responsibility’

When they were asked whether they would prefer the attending to discuss code status, nearly 70% of respondents disagreed.

Of those residents who said they preferred to retain the code-status discussion, 93.4% said they thought it was part of their responsibility as a physician, and 65.8% said they thought they had sufficient training and knowledge to do it. A minority in this group (2.5%) said that they would be likely to disagree with the attending’s estimate of prognosis, and 4.9% said they thought the attending would not share his/her estimate honestly.

When the authors asked about the residents’ general satisfaction with discussion of code status, “we learned two things: One, the residents are significantly more satisfied with their own discussions than their attendings’ discussions; and two, there is a substantial minority that is dissatisfied with all discussions, and a small number who are actually very satisfied,” Dr. Einstein said.

In a linear regression analysis testing for hypothesized correlations, the investigators found that more-senior residents were more likely to share prognostic information and make recommendations (P = .002). Residents who expressed an interest in hematology/oncology or palliative care specialization were also more likely to offer prognostic information, but not to make a recommendation about code status.

More-senior year of training correlated negatively with satisfaction with both the resident’s own and the attending’s discussion of code status.

“We found substantial dissatisfaction with code-status discussions in general, and we hypothesize that this is due to an internal conflict. When a resident knows that an intervention may be more harmful than beneficial, but thinks that the patient should make their own decision alone, then one may experience substantial frustration, and this would increase as training goes on and one becomes more sure of the outcomes of interventions like CPR,” Dr. Einstein said.

Generation gap

Evoking a potential generation gap between old-school doctors and the up-and-coming young physicians who by statute work fewer hours than their mentors had to, “I’m struck that [residents] don’t trust the attendings. When I was a resident, you didn’t do anything without asking the attending,” said Dr. Michael H. Levy, an invited discussant who is vice chair of medical oncology and director of the pain and palliative care program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.

“I’m glad that the residents want to do it, but they have the same arrogance/ignorance that they don’t know how, so if we want them to do it, we have to train them,” he said. The symposium was cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC. The study was supported in part by the Conquer Cancer Foundation. Dr. Einstein and Dr. Levy reported having no relevant disclosures.

Patient mortality and morbidity outcomes have not changed since the most recent round of reforms to medical residents’ duty hours in 2011, according to two of the first nationwide studies to assess these “improvements,” which both were published online Dec. 9 in JAMA.

In addition, one of the studies found no difference between pre-reform and post-reform scores or on pass rates for oral or written national in-training and board certification examinations.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

Thus, two separate studies involving millions of hospitalized patients across the country have both found that these reforms had no discernible effect on patient care. However, both groups of researchers cautioned that their studies were observational and therefore subject to potential biases and that they covered only the first 2 years that the duty-hours reforms have been in place.

The 2011 requirements expanded on those enacted in 2003 by further restricting residents’ duty hours, in the hope of reducing medical errors attributed to exhausted residents. The hours of continuous in-hospital duty were reduced from 30 to 16 for first-year residents and to 24 for upper-year residents, and the interval between shifts was increased to at least 8 hours off for first-year residents and at least 14 hours off for upper-year residents.

“Duty hour reform is arguably one of the largest efforts ever undertaken to improve the quality and safety of patient care in teaching hospitals,” said Dr. Mitesh S. Patel of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veterans Affairs Hospital Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, both in Philadelphia, and his associates.

They assessed 30-day mortality and readmissions among 2,790,356 Medicare patients who were treated either for acute MI, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, or heart failure, or who underwent general, orthopedic, or vascular surgery, at 3,104 hospitals between 2009 and 2012. The investigators found no significant associations, either positive or negative, between the reforms to residents’ duty hours and any patient outcomes. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of the primary data analyses.

“Our findings suggest that ... the goals of improving the quality and safety of patient care ... were not being achieved. Conversely, concerns that outcomes might actually worsen because of decreased continuity of care have not been borne out,” Dr. Patel and his associates said (JAMA 2014 Dec. 9 [doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15273]).

The investigators noted that their study was limited in that it could not take into account hospitals’ adherence to the new requirements. Their study also did not assess other outcomes such as patient safety indicators or complication rates, which “may better elucidate the relative effects of decreased resident fatigue and increased patient hand offs.” And their study couldn’t address any possible confounding effects from other concurrent policy initiatives aimed at improving care for Medicare beneficiaries, such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

In the other study, a separate group of researchers used data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to assess outcomes for 535,499 patients who underwent general surgery at 131 hospitals during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the reforms to residents’ duty hours were implemented. This included 23 teaching hospitals in which residents were involved in at least 95% of general surgeries, said Dr. Ravi Rajaram of the division of research and optimal patient care, American College of Surgeons, and the Institute for Public Health and Medicine at Northwestern University, both in Chicago, and his associates.

The reforms were not associated with any change in rates of patient mortality or serious morbidity, either in the study population as a whole or in the subgroups of high-risk and low-risk patients. They also had no effect on secondary outcomes such as surgical-site infection or sepsis. These results remained consistent across several sensitivity analyses.

Neither mean scores for in-training, written board, and oral board examinations nor pass rates for those examinations showed any significant changes during the study period.

“Moreover, first-year trainees, who were most directly affected by the 2011 reforms, did not improve their ABSITE [American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination] scores, despite presumably more free time to prepare,” Dr. Rajaram and his associates said (JAMA 2014 Dec. 9 [doi:10.1001/JAMA.2014.15277]).

They cautioned that their study assessed only the first 2 years following duty-hour reform, and “there may be differences in patient care or resident examination performance that are evident only several years after implementation and adoption of new duty-hour requirements.” In addition, a retrospective observational study such as this one could not produce the high-level evidence needed to guide policy decisions. “To that end, a national multicenter cluster-randomized trial is being conducted (the Flexibility In duty hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees [FIRST] trial), comparing current duty-hour requirements with flexible duty hours to assess the effects of this intervention on patient outcomes and resident well-being. This trial may further inform the debate of how to optimally structure postgraduate training,” they said.

Patient mortality and morbidity outcomes have not changed since the most recent round of reforms to medical residents’ duty hours in 2011, according to two of the first nationwide studies to assess these “improvements,” which both were published online Dec. 9 in JAMA.

In addition, one of the studies found no difference between pre-reform and post-reform scores or on pass rates for oral or written national in-training and board certification examinations.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

Thus, two separate studies involving millions of hospitalized patients across the country have both found that these reforms had no discernible effect on patient care. However, both groups of researchers cautioned that their studies were observational and therefore subject to potential biases and that they covered only the first 2 years that the duty-hours reforms have been in place.

The 2011 requirements expanded on those enacted in 2003 by further restricting residents’ duty hours, in the hope of reducing medical errors attributed to exhausted residents. The hours of continuous in-hospital duty were reduced from 30 to 16 for first-year residents and to 24 for upper-year residents, and the interval between shifts was increased to at least 8 hours off for first-year residents and at least 14 hours off for upper-year residents.

“Duty hour reform is arguably one of the largest efforts ever undertaken to improve the quality and safety of patient care in teaching hospitals,” said Dr. Mitesh S. Patel of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veterans Affairs Hospital Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, both in Philadelphia, and his associates.

They assessed 30-day mortality and readmissions among 2,790,356 Medicare patients who were treated either for acute MI, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, or heart failure, or who underwent general, orthopedic, or vascular surgery, at 3,104 hospitals between 2009 and 2012. The investigators found no significant associations, either positive or negative, between the reforms to residents’ duty hours and any patient outcomes. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of the primary data analyses.

“Our findings suggest that ... the goals of improving the quality and safety of patient care ... were not being achieved. Conversely, concerns that outcomes might actually worsen because of decreased continuity of care have not been borne out,” Dr. Patel and his associates said (JAMA 2014 Dec. 9 [doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15273]).

The investigators noted that their study was limited in that it could not take into account hospitals’ adherence to the new requirements. Their study also did not assess other outcomes such as patient safety indicators or complication rates, which “may better elucidate the relative effects of decreased resident fatigue and increased patient hand offs.” And their study couldn’t address any possible confounding effects from other concurrent policy initiatives aimed at improving care for Medicare beneficiaries, such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

In the other study, a separate group of researchers used data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to assess outcomes for 535,499 patients who underwent general surgery at 131 hospitals during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the reforms to residents’ duty hours were implemented. This included 23 teaching hospitals in which residents were involved in at least 95% of general surgeries, said Dr. Ravi Rajaram of the division of research and optimal patient care, American College of Surgeons, and the Institute for Public Health and Medicine at Northwestern University, both in Chicago, and his associates.

The reforms were not associated with any change in rates of patient mortality or serious morbidity, either in the study population as a whole or in the subgroups of high-risk and low-risk patients. They also had no effect on secondary outcomes such as surgical-site infection or sepsis. These results remained consistent across several sensitivity analyses.

Neither mean scores for in-training, written board, and oral board examinations nor pass rates for those examinations showed any significant changes during the study period.

“Moreover, first-year trainees, who were most directly affected by the 2011 reforms, did not improve their ABSITE [American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination] scores, despite presumably more free time to prepare,” Dr. Rajaram and his associates said (JAMA 2014 Dec. 9 [doi:10.1001/JAMA.2014.15277]).

They cautioned that their study assessed only the first 2 years following duty-hour reform, and “there may be differences in patient care or resident examination performance that are evident only several years after implementation and adoption of new duty-hour requirements.” In addition, a retrospective observational study such as this one could not produce the high-level evidence needed to guide policy decisions. “To that end, a national multicenter cluster-randomized trial is being conducted (the Flexibility In duty hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees [FIRST] trial), comparing current duty-hour requirements with flexible duty hours to assess the effects of this intervention on patient outcomes and resident well-being. This trial may further inform the debate of how to optimally structure postgraduate training,” they said.

Patient mortality and morbidity outcomes have not changed since the most recent round of reforms to medical residents’ duty hours in 2011, according to two of the first nationwide studies to assess these “improvements,” which both were published online Dec. 9 in JAMA.

In addition, one of the studies found no difference between pre-reform and post-reform scores or on pass rates for oral or written national in-training and board certification examinations.

©Thinglass/thinkstockphotos.com

Thus, two separate studies involving millions of hospitalized patients across the country have both found that these reforms had no discernible effect on patient care. However, both groups of researchers cautioned that their studies were observational and therefore subject to potential biases and that they covered only the first 2 years that the duty-hours reforms have been in place.

The 2011 requirements expanded on those enacted in 2003 by further restricting residents’ duty hours, in the hope of reducing medical errors attributed to exhausted residents. The hours of continuous in-hospital duty were reduced from 30 to 16 for first-year residents and to 24 for upper-year residents, and the interval between shifts was increased to at least 8 hours off for first-year residents and at least 14 hours off for upper-year residents.

“Duty hour reform is arguably one of the largest efforts ever undertaken to improve the quality and safety of patient care in teaching hospitals,” said Dr. Mitesh S. Patel of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veterans Affairs Hospital Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, both in Philadelphia, and his associates.

They assessed 30-day mortality and readmissions among 2,790,356 Medicare patients who were treated either for acute MI, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, or heart failure, or who underwent general, orthopedic, or vascular surgery, at 3,104 hospitals between 2009 and 2012. The investigators found no significant associations, either positive or negative, between the reforms to residents’ duty hours and any patient outcomes. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of the primary data analyses.

“Our findings suggest that ... the goals of improving the quality and safety of patient care ... were not being achieved. Conversely, concerns that outcomes might actually worsen because of decreased continuity of care have not been borne out,” Dr. Patel and his associates said (JAMA 2014 Dec. 9 [doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15273]).

The investigators noted that their study was limited in that it could not take into account hospitals’ adherence to the new requirements. Their study also did not assess other outcomes such as patient safety indicators or complication rates, which “may better elucidate the relative effects of decreased resident fatigue and increased patient hand offs.” And their study couldn’t address any possible confounding effects from other concurrent policy initiatives aimed at improving care for Medicare beneficiaries, such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

In the other study, a separate group of researchers used data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to assess outcomes for 535,499 patients who underwent general surgery at 131 hospitals during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the reforms to residents’ duty hours were implemented. This included 23 teaching hospitals in which residents were involved in at least 95% of general surgeries, said Dr. Ravi Rajaram of the division of research and optimal patient care, American College of Surgeons, and the Institute for Public Health and Medicine at Northwestern University, both in Chicago, and his associates.

The reforms were not associated with any change in rates of patient mortality or serious morbidity, either in the study population as a whole or in the subgroups of high-risk and low-risk patients. They also had no effect on secondary outcomes such as surgical-site infection or sepsis. These results remained consistent across several sensitivity analyses.

Neither mean scores for in-training, written board, and oral board examinations nor pass rates for those examinations showed any significant changes during the study period.

“Moreover, first-year trainees, who were most directly affected by the 2011 reforms, did not improve their ABSITE [American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination] scores, despite presumably more free time to prepare,” Dr. Rajaram and his associates said (JAMA 2014 Dec. 9 [doi:10.1001/JAMA.2014.15277]).

They cautioned that their study assessed only the first 2 years following duty-hour reform, and “there may be differences in patient care or resident examination performance that are evident only several years after implementation and adoption of new duty-hour requirements.” In addition, a retrospective observational study such as this one could not produce the high-level evidence needed to guide policy decisions. “To that end, a national multicenter cluster-randomized trial is being conducted (the Flexibility In duty hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees [FIRST] trial), comparing current duty-hour requirements with flexible duty hours to assess the effects of this intervention on patient outcomes and resident well-being. This trial may further inform the debate of how to optimally structure postgraduate training,” they said.

Declining reimbursements, health care law changes, and increased costs means the modern physician needs to have knowledge in business, law, and medicine. In today’s health care environment business acumen is becoming a necessity few practices can survive without. A recent CNN/Money article highlighted physicians going bankrupt. Lack of a basic understanding of running a business was a common theme for failed practices in the article. Another article, written in Forbes on "Doctors Going Broke" stated that failed business models along with the overly complex coding system were factors contributing to increased bankruptcy rates among physicians. As one physician stated, "Doctors are trained in medicine but not how to run a business." In bankruptcy, everyone loses: the physician, the patients, and the employees.

The need for medically related business and managerial training for medical students and physicians is an area of education that has been frequently discussed among physicians in private and academic practice. However, little has been done by physicians or in formal programs of medical or graduate medical education to address the need to introduce this type of training. Sure there are many programs offering dual MD/MBA degrees: Harvard, Dartmouth, and the University of Texas to name a few. But, is getting an MBA really necessary? This requires a minimum of an extra year of study. Also, one must be selected into such programs, not to mention more debt incurred for the student. The MD/MBA programs do not offer positions to all medical students; they can’t, and the logistics simply aren’t feasible. Why not make business knowledge available to all medical students by making it part of the medical curriculum?

The Business and Medicine Organization (BAM) was founded at the Florida State University College of Medicine on Nov. 1, 2011. The purpose of BAM is to educate our students about the practical and financial aspects of working in the medical field in the 21st century. BAM provides speakers with topics of interest relating to the business aspects of medicine. This includes employment, starting a practice, legal aspects, contracts, investments, insurance companies, and basic economic principles. The ultimate goal of BAM is to incorporate a business course into the medical school curriculum. The vision is for this course to be an elective at first in cooperation with the Florida State College of Business. Eventually, this will be a required course.

Since its inception, BAM has grown from 4 members to almost 100 members. This year it started a yearly scholarship given to those students interested in "the business aspect of medicine." We now have a working partnership with the College of Business. The next step is incorporating business into the curriculum. Last year’s BAM President, Aarian Afshari, met with the curriculum committee to push a business elective into the curriculum. We are still actively working with the curriculum committee on this issue. Since the current member count of BAM is close to 100 members, we will exert a strong influence on the curriculum committee’s decision. Basic business knowledge is a necessity for the physician in the economic reality of health care in the 21st century.

Mr. Hayson is currently a fourth-year medical student at Florida State University, Tallahassee. His goal is to become a vascular surgeon. Before entering medical school, he worked on Wall Street for 5 years as an equities and commodities trader. He has a BS in Finance from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Penn., and a BS in Molecular and Microbiology from the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Declining reimbursements, health care law changes, and increased costs means the modern physician needs to have knowledge in business, law, and medicine. In today’s health care environment business acumen is becoming a necessity few practices can survive without. A recent CNN/Money article highlighted physicians going bankrupt. Lack of a basic understanding of running a business was a common theme for failed practices in the article. Another article, written in Forbes on "Doctors Going Broke" stated that failed business models along with the overly complex coding system were factors contributing to increased bankruptcy rates among physicians. As one physician stated, "Doctors are trained in medicine but not how to run a business." In bankruptcy, everyone loses: the physician, the patients, and the employees.

The need for medically related business and managerial training for medical students and physicians is an area of education that has been frequently discussed among physicians in private and academic practice. However, little has been done by physicians or in formal programs of medical or graduate medical education to address the need to introduce this type of training. Sure there are many programs offering dual MD/MBA degrees: Harvard, Dartmouth, and the University of Texas to name a few. But, is getting an MBA really necessary? This requires a minimum of an extra year of study. Also, one must be selected into such programs, not to mention more debt incurred for the student. The MD/MBA programs do not offer positions to all medical students; they can’t, and the logistics simply aren’t feasible. Why not make business knowledge available to all medical students by making it part of the medical curriculum?

The Business and Medicine Organization (BAM) was founded at the Florida State University College of Medicine on Nov. 1, 2011. The purpose of BAM is to educate our students about the practical and financial aspects of working in the medical field in the 21st century. BAM provides speakers with topics of interest relating to the business aspects of medicine. This includes employment, starting a practice, legal aspects, contracts, investments, insurance companies, and basic economic principles. The ultimate goal of BAM is to incorporate a business course into the medical school curriculum. The vision is for this course to be an elective at first in cooperation with the Florida State College of Business. Eventually, this will be a required course.

Since its inception, BAM has grown from 4 members to almost 100 members. This year it started a yearly scholarship given to those students interested in "the business aspect of medicine." We now have a working partnership with the College of Business. The next step is incorporating business into the curriculum. Last year’s BAM President, Aarian Afshari, met with the curriculum committee to push a business elective into the curriculum. We are still actively working with the curriculum committee on this issue. Since the current member count of BAM is close to 100 members, we will exert a strong influence on the curriculum committee’s decision. Basic business knowledge is a necessity for the physician in the economic reality of health care in the 21st century.

Mr. Hayson is currently a fourth-year medical student at Florida State University, Tallahassee. His goal is to become a vascular surgeon. Before entering medical school, he worked on Wall Street for 5 years as an equities and commodities trader. He has a BS in Finance from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Penn., and a BS in Molecular and Microbiology from the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Declining reimbursements, health care law changes, and increased costs means the modern physician needs to have knowledge in business, law, and medicine. In today’s health care environment business acumen is becoming a necessity few practices can survive without. A recent CNN/Money article highlighted physicians going bankrupt. Lack of a basic understanding of running a business was a common theme for failed practices in the article. Another article, written in Forbes on "Doctors Going Broke" stated that failed business models along with the overly complex coding system were factors contributing to increased bankruptcy rates among physicians. As one physician stated, "Doctors are trained in medicine but not how to run a business." In bankruptcy, everyone loses: the physician, the patients, and the employees.

The need for medically related business and managerial training for medical students and physicians is an area of education that has been frequently discussed among physicians in private and academic practice. However, little has been done by physicians or in formal programs of medical or graduate medical education to address the need to introduce this type of training. Sure there are many programs offering dual MD/MBA degrees: Harvard, Dartmouth, and the University of Texas to name a few. But, is getting an MBA really necessary? This requires a minimum of an extra year of study. Also, one must be selected into such programs, not to mention more debt incurred for the student. The MD/MBA programs do not offer positions to all medical students; they can’t, and the logistics simply aren’t feasible. Why not make business knowledge available to all medical students by making it part of the medical curriculum?

The Business and Medicine Organization (BAM) was founded at the Florida State University College of Medicine on Nov. 1, 2011. The purpose of BAM is to educate our students about the practical and financial aspects of working in the medical field in the 21st century. BAM provides speakers with topics of interest relating to the business aspects of medicine. This includes employment, starting a practice, legal aspects, contracts, investments, insurance companies, and basic economic principles. The ultimate goal of BAM is to incorporate a business course into the medical school curriculum. The vision is for this course to be an elective at first in cooperation with the Florida State College of Business. Eventually, this will be a required course.

Since its inception, BAM has grown from 4 members to almost 100 members. This year it started a yearly scholarship given to those students interested in "the business aspect of medicine." We now have a working partnership with the College of Business. The next step is incorporating business into the curriculum. Last year’s BAM President, Aarian Afshari, met with the curriculum committee to push a business elective into the curriculum. We are still actively working with the curriculum committee on this issue. Since the current member count of BAM is close to 100 members, we will exert a strong influence on the curriculum committee’s decision. Basic business knowledge is a necessity for the physician in the economic reality of health care in the 21st century.

Mr. Hayson is currently a fourth-year medical student at Florida State University, Tallahassee. His goal is to become a vascular surgeon. Before entering medical school, he worked on Wall Street for 5 years as an equities and commodities trader. He has a BS in Finance from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Penn., and a BS in Molecular and Microbiology from the University of Central Florida, Orlando.